Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]So it really was an earthquake engineered by the ghost of the Ayatollah which caused us to get even with Sadamm? B. D. Colen wrote: >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 >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >