Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hey there, Walt, climb out of your black helicopter...:-) You actually ought to find that PBS show somewhere; it's fascinating, impressive, and quite moving. What they claim happened is, as others have pointed out, the central core of the building wasn't protected from the intense heat; a series of support girders weren't anchored at either end, but were simply resting in place. Apparently as the intense heat built up in the area surrounding the crash and explosion, the girders began to sag in the middle, and since they weren't welded at the ends, they collapsed downward, causing floor upon floor to collapse, all the way down - which is said to explain the fact that the towers went straight down as they did. I'm afraid that this really is a story about exploding cigars, rather than anything unusually sinister. Now, if you want to start talking about the incredible "coincidence" that there was an "exercise" going on on the morning of 9/11, and that the "exercise" explains why it took so damn long for planes to scramble, that's a discussion worth having - but probably off-line or over on the Forum, and not here. On 6/23/06 3:51 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote: > Henning > > You can logic chop it to death but try to explain it. Both towers within > minutes and from different impacts? Try an unsimplistic analysis on us > just for kicks but lay off the earthquakes and other very unrelated > events. Any time there is a disaster the nut cases float to the top and > scream government cover-up. There is a world of difference between a > successful cover-up and spoon feeding the population their morning dose > of stupid cereal. But given the list of failed cover up just in my > lifetime could we be faulted for mistrusting the official line? > > Walt > > Henning Wulff wrote: > >>> In a message dated 6/23/06 4:36:53 AM, lug-request@leica-users.org >>> writes: >>> >>> >>>> I was amazed at how fast they both came down. Plane crash or no, there >>>> is something not quite kosher about the twin and simultaneous >>>> collapse. >>>> >>>> Walt >>>> ----------------------- >>> >>> The architect in charge of construction admitted on TV that they >>> failed to >>> encase the center utilities column, in concrete. They used drywall. >>> The plane >>> shot right through the entire building. There was nothing to stop it. >>> Yep, they >>> cut corners and there was no municipal or state law to compel them to >>> spend >>> the money and take the time to do the job right. >>> >>> Bob >> >> >> As an architect I have to say that is both a silly and definitely a >> simplistic analysis. >> >> The towers were not designed for such an impact, and certainly had no >> reason to be. >> >> You can never design any building to withstand all disasters. You can >> not design it both because the depth of knowledge does not exist nor >> does the imagination exist, the technology and construction methods do >> not exist, and, most importantly, you cannot afford to by orders of >> magnitude. >> >> If a serious earthquake hits the central US (and it will, just like it >> has in the past) tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of >> lives will be lost. If an earthquake of the magnitude of the '64 >> Alaska quake hit Vancouver (and it will), tens of thousands of lives >> will be lost. >> >> These are disasters we can imagine, and that will happen. We don't >> know when, but they will. We have the technology to prepare for them >> and to design for them, but the standards don't force the construction >> of buildings that will truly resist these disasters, because a) we >> cannot afford them - again, we are talking of orders of magnitude, not >> 2x or 5x the cost- and b) everything around them, the whole >> infrastructure, is gone so to have a building withstand them is almost >> pointless. >> >> We make choices, based on our knowledge, technologies, economic >> abilities and lifespan timelines. These are not irrational choices, >> but it does mean that every once in a while something bites us. We >> learn a bit each time, but just as we have to stop searching for the >> perfect lens, and go out and shoot, we also have to build, live, and >> get on with life. We definitely have to get over the 'what if' >> syndrome at some point. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information