Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Twin Towers
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Fri Jun 23 13:54:39 2006
References: <7d43a37d54b7.7d54b77d43a3@shaw.ca>

Was that before, during or after repressed sexual thoughts about mommy 
and sis?

GREG LORENZO wrote:

>Henning knows of what he speaks.
>
>As Sigmund said 'sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar'.
>
>Regards,
>
>Greg
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com>
>Date: Friday, June 23, 2006 1:51 pm
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Twin Towers
>
>  
>
>>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>

In reply to: Message from gregj.lorenzo at shaw.ca (GREG LORENZO) ([Leica] Twin Towers)