roland comments on What is missing from rationality? - Less Wrong

19 [deleted] 27 April 2010 12:32PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (260)

Sort By: Leading

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: roland 03 May 2010 01:23:59AM -1 points [-]
Comment author: RobinZ 03 May 2010 02:49:19AM 1 point [-]

How much explosive charge would it take to cause the failure observed? Where would it have to be installed? How many hours would that take, and how many workers? How many people would have to be displaced so as not to witness the building being prepared to blow? Where did the explosives come from? Who paid for them? Who delivered them, and to whom, where? Why would the project be timed to go on September 11th? Why would the denotation of the explosives be delayed to seven hours after the debris struck the building? Why didn't the fire interfere with the operation of the explosives? How much noise would the explosives make? How quickly would the building collapse after the explosion?

Even if you think the official story is not well supported, I have to say it stacks up positively magnificently compared to the building-implosion theory.

Comment deleted 03 May 2010 01:58:58AM [-]
Comment author: Jack 03 May 2010 03:50:25AM *  4 points [-]

Aside from the fact that ata is right and WTC7 was actually brought down from fires and structural damage caused by the falling tower, not the airplanes themselves, this strikes me as a reasonable response to persistent and uncorrectable wrongness. Do people disagree? If so, what is the appropriate response?

Comment author: ata 03 May 2010 02:07:12AM *  2 points [-]

WTC7 was not one of the buildings that got hit by a plane.

(Lest anyone misinterpret my motives... I'm just correcting a statement of fact. I am absolutely not defending the claim that any of them were brought down by explosives, which I do not believe.)