3 ms·

>...and the collapse resulted from a long string of coincidences. -Most, if not all spectacular, unexpected events are the result of a long string of coinciden

by lb1lf 10y ago

>...and the collapse resulted from a long string of coincidences. -Most, if not all spectacular, unexpected events are the result of a long string of coincidences. Otherwise, they'd be common occurrences.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
That would work with one building. A long string of coincidences (failures upon failures…), such as the ones that causes some big server outage, or blackout, or plane crash, could have been a good explanation for the fall of one building. Here however the "string of coincidences" hypothesis would have to apply pretty much simultaneously to three buildings, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane. No. freaking. way. That's just too damn improbable.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  You're ignoring correlation. The twin towers are, for almost all purposes, virtually identical, and experienced largely identical scenarios. For them to behave differently under such circumstances would be less extraordinary than for them to behave similarly. To my knowledge, the twin towers are the only buildings in history to have been hit with a four-engine plane full of fuel (El Al Flight 1862 apparently had only two engines left when it struck the apartment building. Note that the building fully collapsed at point of impact). Again, to my knowledge, with WTC 7, they were the only high-rises to have experienced serious, out of control multi-floor fires for hours after receiving major structural damage--Deutsche Bank received serious damage but no fires so far as I can tell. If 100% of similar structures in similar circumstances have failed in a similar manner, is that improbable?
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    Then we're veering off the "multiple coincidences" hypothesis, to a much more probable theory.
andres_kytt 10y ago
These coincidents can usually be explained by a latter analysis. That's the main point of the article: til now there is no logically sound string of events that explains the observed events, demolition, fire or otherwise. These events might indeed be of low probability but currently even the events are not known.

by lb1lf 10y ago

loup-vaillant 10y ago

That would work with one building. A long string of coincidences (failures upon failures…), such as the ones that causes some big server outage, or blackout, or plane crash, could have been a good explanation for the fall of one building. Here however the "string of coincidences" hypothesis would have to apply pretty much simultaneously to three buildings, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane. No. freaking. way. That's just too damn improbable.

jcranmer 10y ago
You're ignoring correlation. The twin towers are, for almost all purposes, virtually identical, and experienced largely identical scenarios. For them to behave differently under such circumstances would be less extraordinary than for them to behave similarly. To my knowledge, the twin towers are the only buildings in history to have been hit with a four-engine plane full of fuel (El Al Flight 1862 apparently had only two engines left when it struck the apartment building. Note that the building fully collapsed at point of impact). Again, to my knowledge, with WTC 7, they were the only high-rises to have experienced serious, out of control multi-floor fires for hours after receiving major structural damage--Deutsche Bank received serious damage but no fires so far as I can tell. If 100% of similar structures in similar circumstances have failed in a similar manner, is that improbable?
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  Then we're veering off the "multiple coincidences" hypothesis, to a much more probable theory.

andres_kytt 10y ago

These coincidents can usually be explained by a latter analysis. That's the main point of the article: til now there is no logically sound string of events that explains the observed events, demolition, fire or otherwise. These events might indeed be of low probability but currently even the events are not known.