*insert can't tell if serious meme*
Yes, it will. (Though some will argue it's a very weak concession from UEFA)
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Yes, it will. (Though some will argue it's a very weak concession from UEFA)
The world is full of structural engineers who have seen the evidence and concluded such. The 9/11 collapses were, forensically, the most interesting event in the profession since Northridge. The vast majority that I know have read both FEMA 403 and the NIST reports at length, and discussed the findings at length. Who do you think wrote the report, you dolt?A structural engineer that has seen the WT7 collapse and heard/read the NIST report; that has seen the computer generated simulation and explanation provide by NIST - yet claims not to be in denial?
No you’re not in denial:
you’re a LIAR!
WTC 7 collapsed due to connection failure induced by disproportionate thermal expansion along long span gravity beams connecting to gravity columns. The connection failures in turn induced buckling failure of critical interior columns due to great increase of the unbranded length of the wide flange columns in compression. The progressive failure then spread through the structure as the first failed column pulled floor framing members down with it, inducing buckling failure due to increase of unbraced length of adjacent columns and so on.
If you actually understood how a structure is designed and load path detailed, reading the NIST reports make it plainly obvious why the collapse of WTC7 occured. Few elements in a building structure are explicitly designed to resist lateral loads (wind, seismic, and, yes, thermal), this is due to the cost of constructing properly detailed laterally resistant frames. Long columns, particularly wide flange sections (I-beams), in compression, however, require lateral restraint to avoid buckling failures. So even the gravity columns require lateral restraint, but, again, the connecting elements are not designed for lateral force. Nominally, the sheer resisting connections and the floor diaphragm detailing are adequate to transfer any lateral loads induced by torsional irregularities stemming from gravity loading into the diaphragm and to the lateral frames. But significant thermal expansion/contraction can produce forces that exceed this nominal capacity - these are simply forces that were not, and are not, accounted for in the design. This precisely why codes require that buildings exceeding specific width:length ratios, or dimensional lengths irrespective of width, are required to have thermal expansion joints designed into the structure. The requirements of these code specificated thermal expansion joints, even updated more stringent requirements compared to the codes WTC7 was designed to, do not account for day long widespread internal building fires - clients require buildings they can afford, not buildings that will survive armageddon.
Anyway - we've digressed enough, and I've completely wasted my breakfast break on your absolute nonsense. Either put on your tinfoil hat and go back to youtube, or if you really want to understand why WTC7 collapsed, go to engineering school.
The longer he waits, the more lives lost. Simple.
Ask yourself the following question, and answer them truthfully:
1. If an organization had the power, competance and ruthlessnes to pull something like the attacks on the twin towers off and to keep it covered up, don't you think they'd have the intelligence to demolish the towers in a fashion that could not be "proven" to be staged by people like you and those that you trust?
2. Whatever you think their motivation was, do you not think whoever you think was behind it would find an easier way to get what they wanted?
3. Is a conspiracy the most plausible explanation? Is it plausible at all?
4. Is it possible that your "evidence" is wrongly interpreted or false?
"For the health and safety of all, we are cancelling the 2022 World Cup 32 months in advance because holy shit its in fucking Qatar in December how dumb is that. Oh ya and Covid-19."
Have you studied medicine/biology/biostatistics or something? I've been predicting the rate myself using a naive model with slight expansions over the last two weeks (because the government hasn't made their own methods accessible). The naive algorithm is obviously just arithmetic with R0, current total cases and generation interval, but as info regarding geographic distribution has become more common with enough cases to make a statistically significant difference, I started multiplying the per-case reproduction by a weight vector including local population density.
So far, though, my intuitive estimates have been about as accurate as my algorithmic model (I said last weekend that I expected this week to see an explosion into four digits, and my program then said 1800 cases by Sunday). Only the algorithmic model predicted a non-monotonically increasing daily delta after about 200 cases though. It would be impossible for a naive model or normal human estimate to predict specific days of slowed growth, but I got one right programmatically and I intend to work out why (if not by chance) this weekend.
I have a background in computer science, medical science, epidemiology and AI (and some other areas of STEM). I've been using it to try to help people. I started telling everyone IRL I care about or who I came into contact with that seemed decent enough to prepare for a potential quarantine style scenario (or at least to prepare for panic buyers) by slowly assembling a small stockpile and not being greedy about a month ago now. Everyone who followed my advice (which was basically everyone who knows me well) has been thanking me this week. I'm hoping I'll be able to predict where in the country is at the most risk as the dataset expands and I refine my weight vector (I'm sure the government already has their own ideas but they're not going to announce that shit to the public).
Long winded claptrap!
Anyone who has seen the collapse ( and I saw it on the day), knows absolutely what they are witnessing. Explaining it away first as due to normal office fires, and later in such a pathetically convoluted way as you yourself have just done does not dismiss the blatant obvious.
Never mind the evidence that the first responders set a perimeter in place in preparation for the collapse they knew was about to happen - provable, and never mind the fact that the lease holder confirmed that he called for the building “ to be pulled” and watch the building come down - again provable.
Never mind the evidence indeed - just watch the collapse - it’s not a smoking gun - it’s a fucking confession!
Corona Virus saving our season, even Dr Tottenham himself could have never come up with this.
Poor scouse, this was finally their year.
Poor scouse, this was finally their year.
Answer 1.
What was pulled off was in reality almost perfectly executed, but,there were too many anomalies- WT7 being the most obvious. To answer your question the answer is probably yes they could have but they got sloppy - the third building was likely supposed to come down during the chaos of the WT1 collapse but failed to.
Answer 2.
What was wanted could have been brought about in many a devastating way- especially using live television feeds. The reality is that this was planed decades in advance and it was important to fulfil that plan as religiously set out.
Answer 3.
The official story would have us believe that 19 Arabs successfully hijacked four air craft and successfully flew three out of four of them in to their intended targets.
In short: the official narrative is that we must believe in its conspiracy only!
Answer 4.
If the corporate media would publish the evidence available for all to ponder, examine, and criticise we’d both have the answer to your question but sadly the corporate media is more a smoking gun than is WT7.
You're literally too stupid for my time. Have fun on YouTube, tinfoil.
He's a Millwall supporter from South London, thick as shit.
You sound more like a low level journalist than a structural engineer.
Hope you enjoyed your pancakes bacon and fucking syrup.
You could have saved yourself the time, enjoyed a relaxing breakfast and called him a utter fucking delusional twat, although you'd only be adding your voice to what the rest of us already knew.
Let it not be forgotten that this is the man who took George Galloway's side against the Club
I see no point trying to extricate the media from the government. The media - and, nowadays, the internet pseudo-monopolies, which means all the same people anyway - is the government and vice-versa. If the media conglomerates, of which there are really only four or five at the top level of the hierarchy in the entire English-speaking world, choose to combine their full power, they can guarantee any given sociopolitical outcome -- in exchange, the politico beneficiaries work for the business owners and their friends.Not one media outlet, not the BBC, ITV, CNN, or FOX; none globally have aired the evidence that is available and has been so for over fifteen years to date; not one national or international newspaper has presented the now scientific proof of government and military collusion.
The fact is that when the media won’t report in a reasonable and meaningful way - the evidence- it’s because the government and the media are in cahoots in some way with the real perpetrators!
Trust the media? Not a chance!
The lines between the historical "estates"/"columns" were blurred a long time ago and then eroded completely. The internet served as an information liberation front for a time - a brief interlude for us, and an extremely irritating obstacle to the media tycoons - but they found a way around this utopian unmediated exchange of ideas with time, technological advancement and ideas of their own.
By aggregating and "conglomerating" the internet (see also: the whole of social media), they made it even more effective and efficient for sentiment manipulation than traditional/legacy media. Self-admittedly, their efforts were redoubled after the anomalies of 2016 both here and there (Trump worked out in the end for the traditional aristocratic elites but I think they're in rare disagreement with the nouveau Silicon Valley set there). The Valley lot have the will and plenty of power to, as the Google execs put it, "prevent a repeat of 2016", so it's going to be an interesting year and an interesting conflict between the old and new guards since I don't see the real powermongers throwing their weight against a tamed incumbent.
Anyway, yeah, the legacy media is garbage but so is the Facebook-Google-Twitter axis. It's redundant to name both since they're entwined beyond most people's credulity, and continue to prop each other up in a united front against plebeian wrongthink IRL and plebeian conversation online. Alphabet loves to give money to struggling establishment news businesses for ideological reasons. Ostensibly, it's a dying, loss-making industry in which every major player would already be bankrupt or irreconcilably deep in the red without handouts from the elite, but it's really a loss leader: losing trivial sums for control of all readily available sources of information is actually just good calculus.