Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:22 pm
Minimolas wrote:The one thing I can't get past about 9/11 is WTC 7, there's not way it burned down due to fire, logic says that WTC 7 was a demolition, but I suppose this is the wrong thread.
Logic has to be based on sufficient understanding of relevant aspects of reality.
In that case, a good enough understanding of engineering in general and the building in particular to enable someone to be aware of the possible failure modes of the structure when damaged.
Logic doesn't include people trying to scale up 'common sense' ideas of how much smaller structures behave unless they have a serious understanding of what does and doesn't simply scale when it comes to modelling.
Nor does it include looking at how a building collapses after collapse starts, comparing that with how buildings being demolished collapse after collapse starts, and concluding that the causes of collapse must be the same - that would be indulging in a logical fallacy.
One might think that 'common sense' would suggest that if it was 'obviously not possible' for the collapses to have had plane impacts and fires as their causes, the people who best understand such structures would have been crying foul in large numbers right from the start.
Many conspiracy theories require large numbers of such people to have been bribed or intimidated into silence, strangely without any having reported that to have happened.
But that's classic conspiracy-theory logic - the conspiracy somehow knows [i]in advance[/i] that its attempts to co-opt or coerce people, many of whom would be expected to be entirely opposed to its aims and methods, will be successful to a frankly unbelievable extent.
Which seems to suggest typical conspiracy theorists have a shockingly low opinion of the honesty and bravery of pretty much anyone apart from themselves.