|
02 Jan 02 - 10:06 PM (#620182) Subject: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt I was talking to a NYC fireman and he said why the WTC fell down so easy was because it was not built to the standards of New York State which were considerably lower than NYC codes what do yu think? ron |
|
02 Jan 02 - 10:19 PM (#620193) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: katlaughing Sorry, but I don't think this is a good way to start out the new year. Just my opinion. Thanks, kat |
|
02 Jan 02 - 10:20 PM (#620194) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST I think it was because some Arab-Muslims mass murderers hijacked airliners and crashed them into the towers. The planes were filled with many thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel and that the Arab-Muslim mass murderers were counting on the jet fuel to incinerate the building. I also don't beleive that a NYC fireman would tell you that. BTW, my brother died in the WTC on 9/11 and I'm offended by your post. |
|
02 Jan 02 - 10:27 PM (#620197) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) A thread (or more) on this before. Old topic, no merit. |
|
02 Jan 02 - 10:34 PM (#620199) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: DonMeixner Ron, Building codes or not, Buildings aren't designed to withstand that type of impact. What brought the towers down was an act of terrorism and war, not a lack of aherence to building codes. Guest, I have no experience in my life to know your grief. My deepest and sincerest sympathy for your loss. Don Meixner |
|
02 Jan 02 - 10:53 PM (#620203) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Celtic Soul Well gosh...Do you think that in the "specs" for NY states building code they have considered 747's slamming into the sides???? My God... |
|
02 Jan 02 - 11:10 PM (#620211) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Jack the Sailor Apparantly they WERE designed to withstand a collision with a 707, a plane similar in size to the 767's which hit. and both towers did withstand the collision. What was not taken into account was the huge amount of aviation feul from planes loaded for cross country flights. The fuel burned long enough and hot enough to melt the structural steel and facilitate the collapse. Something which admittedly surprised even bin Laden who participated in formulating the plan of the attack. 1970's technology did not enable us to build a building that tall without a steel frame. Therefor the building codes did not in any way contribute to the problem. GUEST what was your brother's name? Anon. perhaps? The only way you could be a bigger ass is if you actually HAD lost a brother on Sept 11. |
|
02 Jan 02 - 11:26 PM (#620219) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,Bill Hawkins My brothers name was Tony Hawkins. He was only 30 years old. Jack the Sailor, you can fuck off. |
|
02 Jan 02 - 11:47 PM (#620229) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: katlaughing Bill, we have had a lot of facetious postings by anonymous guests, some of whom have exploited our good intentions with false claims. Sorry if you've been mistaken for one of them. May I echo what Don Meixner said so eloquently? I am sorry for your loss. kat |
|
02 Jan 02 - 11:58 PM (#620232) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Melani Guest, please excuse Jack and accept my sympathy also. I don't think this thread was meant to be offensive. |
|
03 Jan 02 - 12:33 AM (#620245) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,A different Guest It was meant to be stupid though. Let's keep it at least a little closer to music. |
|
03 Jan 02 - 10:58 AM (#620376) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Mr Red It fell down because it was not designed to withstand a fire fueled by the full tanks of a jumbo jet. basically that risk has to be managed a different way because it was not just skyscraper that were targeted. It has been said that the energy from fuel inside the building would not be sufficient and the fire service would have had enough time. |
|
03 Jan 02 - 11:23 AM (#620389) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: SharonA Bill Hawkins: I, too, am truly sorry for your loss in the death of your brother. Please know that there are people out here who care and who respect your feelings. Sharon |
|
03 Jan 02 - 12:21 PM (#620416) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: annamill Go away. |
|
03 Jan 02 - 02:12 PM (#620450) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Jerry Dingleman: The Boy Wonder(inactve) Bill Hawkins, Jeff Hardy, the younger brother of folk bard Jack Hardy, was also killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Jeff was a great guy and a great bass player who toured with Jack for many years before taking a straight job as an executive chef for one of the big companies located in the WTC. Jeff was always happy to play with lots of other folks. He backed me up a couple of times when I played guest sets at the Speakeasy around 20 years ago. Knowing someone who was killed in the tragedy, even a casual friend that I hadn't seen in a long time, really personalized 9/11 for me. I can appreciate your pain and you certainly have my sympathy. Jerry |
|
03 Jan 02 - 02:12 PM (#620452) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Steve in Idaho (Anthony Hawkins) Peace be to you - Steve |
|
03 Jan 02 - 02:16 PM (#620453) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: skarpi Halló all, Bill I am sorry to hear about your loss and i see In this thread that some of us are not ready to answear or ask this questions. But the building had big iron-bound In the middle, but when a plaine hits the building full of gas the gas goes down to the middle of the WTC and the heat´s of the fire melds down the Iron so it´s fell into it self and we all know what happent. I hope you understand this. May god be with you all. I hope that I did not hurt anyone by this. All the best Skarpi Iceland. |
|
03 Jan 02 - 02:22 PM (#620458) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Jack the Sailor GUEST Started out the post OK but more or less answering the question. Then, for no good reason, he called ro1sin a liar. Then added the statement about taking offence as an after thought. It doesn't make sense that someone who had actually lost a brother would do this. Especially putting his brother third. I don't think ro1sin was trolling. I believe GUEST was and probably still is. It is the easy thing to evoke sympathy for the events of September 11. To do it anonomously, paired with an insult is just going a little too far. If Bill Hawkins were to register and start thread about about his brother, it would be different. But to use his brothers memory to support a GUEST flame, is in very poor taste.
|
|
03 Jan 02 - 03:43 PM (#620503) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt buildings in the 70s were not designed to withstand the force of a plane but in 1944 a military plane crashed in tempire state building with little or no damage to that building because the building was constructed to the NYC code I have worked in many in NYC buildings for 50 yrs as a stemfitter and i can say NOT all buildings are created equea in days gone by beams and colums were encased in concrete now merely sprayed with asbestos and put over rusty steel that has been sitting around for months ron |
|
03 Jan 02 - 03:52 PM (#620505) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: SINSULL Whatever the motives behind this thread, for the first time, I have been able to go through all the names, selectively read some biographies, and respectfully acknowledge their passings. Thank you, all. It has been a long time coming. Mary |
|
03 Jan 02 - 04:05 PM (#620513) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,ghost I heard, from the early reports about the incident, that the "lack" of insulation, (some sort of asbestos type product that is sprayed onto the metal framework), which usually covers the metal substructure of most modern buildings, was a contributing factor to the collapse. According to the report, the WTC buildings did not have this insulation present. I don't understand why the builders were not required to do this. Was it a money issue or? I'm not trying to say that this coating on the metal would have changed the ultimate outcome of what happened that day. As to how much it may have helped, I'd leave that determination to the experts. Certainly if the building's frame would have been covered, the effects of the heat might have been lessened, at least allowing more time for rescue operations to take place. When I first heard this report I was dismayed. I don't think this point has been brought to the forefront in the investigation as to why the buildings fell. There are certainly more important things to do at this time. |
|
03 Jan 02 - 06:10 PM (#620586) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Dave the Gnome Well, one less Hawkins of the same family as our trolling guest is a good move. It's one less arsehole to worry about. I agree with you, Jack. Anyone who was really moved and upset would not use the Mudcat to try and win points over someone they did not even know. Oh - and before you tell anyomne else to F... off, Guest, think about the people who really did loose someone, imagine what their pain must be like, and then go stick your head up a bears arse. Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
03 Jan 02 - 06:25 PM (#620597) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com we do not know what someone who is truly moved and upset will do. Whatever will give them some relief is ok with me. mg |
|
03 Jan 02 - 06:27 PM (#620598) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt i believe that a lot will come out in the final investigation as to the real whys and wherefore i was in ireland about 2 weeks after the wtc and all the people in the pubs kept remarking that most of the fireman killed were "Paddys" ron |
|
03 Jan 02 - 06:36 PM (#620603) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Blackcatter ro1sin said: "buildings in the 70s were not designed to withstand the force of a plane but in 1944 a military plane crashed in tempire state building with little or no damage to that building because the building was constructed to the NYC code" > There actually was quite a lot of damage done to the Emipre State Building, but it also withstood the hit of a smaller, slower airplane that wasn't filled nearly to the brim with highly flammable aviation fuel. "I have worked in many in NYC buildings for 50 yrs as a stemfitter and i can say NOT all buildings are created equea" > DUH - But in hearing an interview of the architect firm that designed the WTC they stated that the WTC was OVER designed - because it was really the first of its kind they designed it better than was needed - for expected conditions - a 767 was not considered to be expected. "in days gone by beams and colums were encased in concrete now merely sprayed with asbestos and put over rusty steel that has been sitting around for months" > Please, this is just a pack of lies. (first of all, asbestos hasn't been used since the 60's) And "rusty" steel is hardened structural steel that has only a fine layer of rust on the outside. When used in an indoor structure, rust is effectively stopped because it is not exposed to weather - simple as that. Frankly, your ignorance is showing. If you chose to make statements around here, please do so on subject you know something about. pax yall
|
|
03 Jan 02 - 07:54 PM (#620651) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt Whatever wait till the reports come out towards the end of this year |
|
03 Jan 02 - 09:52 PM (#620692) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: catspaw49 This thread is the height of nonsense! Any report as to "why" the towers fell must inevitably end with the simple fact that no one designs any building to take that kind of punishment. Period. If we are going to continue to build towers of that proportion, it strikes me as inconseivable that they will withstand a hit of the same magnitude. If we are trying to affix blame for the collapse, it's ludicrous. They fell. Many died. It was a terrorist attack and very successful. Drop the subject unless you are some kind of structural engineer......and if you are, have the good sense not to continue this unproductive discussion. Spaw |
|
03 Jan 02 - 09:54 PM (#620693) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST The building fell down for a very simple reason
apparently overlooked by all of you
Ever since Sir Issac Newton discovered the law or gravity
things have fell DOWN, NOT UP! |
|
03 Jan 02 - 10:16 PM (#620702) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST Aren't the physics fairly straightforward? To knock down steel reinforced concrete you need an enormous shockwave - a jet doing several hundred miles an hour should do the trick - and enormous heat - as generated by enough aviation fuel to reach the west cosat for instance - to destroy the tensile strength of the steel rods supporting it. Most of us would not abuse our imagination to think up something as awful as that. We can blame nobody for not forseeing it. I'm staying out of the politics here. My condolonces to al the bereaved. |
|
03 Jan 02 - 10:57 PM (#620722) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: sc It kinda offends me when ANYONE places reponsibility on "Arab-Muslims mass murderers" which tends to implicate a few million innocent folks and could well contribute to their persecution. We need to move away from that type of mentality and place the blame where it belongs - perhaps on the shoulders of radical zealots, whatever the ethninticity (damn -how do you spell that one?) or religion. Peace! |
|
03 Jan 02 - 11:13 PM (#620727) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,Rana An article from the BBC on the above question
This may provide an answer to a thread which has also contained some nastiness which has disgusted me. My sorrow goes to all who lost friends and relatives. Rana
|
|
03 Jan 02 - 11:40 PM (#620733) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Big Mick I have been around here a fairly long time, have seen my share of stupid threads, have even contributed some pretty stupid shit meself. But this one takes the cake. Mick |
|
03 Jan 02 - 11:47 PM (#620734) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Blackcatter ro1sin: officially nominated as Mudcat's lamest poster of the year! |
|
04 Jan 02 - 09:34 AM (#620846) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,Sherlock H. A certain "sc" wrote: "It kinda offends me when ANYONE places reponsibility on "Arab-Muslims mass murderers". Undisputable fact #1: All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Arabs. Undisputable fact #2: All 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims. Undisputable fact #3: The actions of the 9/11 hijackers resulted in the murders of thousands of innocent people. That certainly makes them mass murderers. Obvious conclusion #1: The 19 9/11 hijackers were Arab-Muslim mass murderers. To deny the obvious is to deny the truth. Obvious conclusion #2: Millions of Arab-Muslims who were not involved in the mass murders of 9/11 are NOT mass murderers. Elementary. |
|
04 Jan 02 - 10:00 AM (#620861) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,Butch at work Nice work Sherlock! The fact is when we say Arab-Muslim mass murders we mean only those Arab Muslim who are mass murders. We DO NOT mean Arab Muslim bakers, butchers or candle stick makers we only mean the mass murders. That is why we say the Arab Muslim MAss Murders! I wish peoiple would learn that words have meanings. Also to ro1sin -- you are an idiot. As a fire fighter, I can tell you that the insulation sprayed on steel is about 100% more effective than the old concrete method. This spray on stuff sticks in most fire applications and does not explode, chip or fracture (concrete based insutlators will in high temp conditions). Also,the fact is that when the Empire State Building took a B-25 hit the plane was not only about 2/3 smaller than the jet that hit the WTC( I know as I have seen the B-25 fly with the Confederate Air Force in St. Louis) but it did not explode and spill all of it's fuel into the building ! Nor did it fly fast enough to get totaly inside the building, Much of the plane remained on the outside of the walls. Big Difference! Also, if it had the fire would not have been nearly as hot since the fuels used were different. I will put out a gas fire over a jet fuel fire any day. Not building that I know of in any city could have taken the heat concentrated on limited number of closely packed floors fuel by thousands of gallons of jet fuel. |
|
04 Jan 02 - 10:51 AM (#620887) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: sc Courageous being behind the mask(s) of "Guest". Your limited ability to reason is so very impressive. Ya sound so very, shall we say, "Presidential"? (That's not a compliment!) |
|
04 Jan 02 - 11:05 AM (#620894) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,sweet caroline Shit, Sherlock, I'm with sc. Where is your logic? The fact that the all of the mass murderers were Arabs and Muslims could not possibly have had anything to do with their mass murders. Therefore, to describe them as Arabs or Muslims is a racist act that paints all Arabs and Muslims as mass murderers.
|
|
04 Jan 02 - 11:15 AM (#620903) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: alanabit SC - the reason that my post at 1016 your time is under "Guest" is that my cookie was not working at the time. My point was simply |
|
04 Jan 02 - 11:16 AM (#620904) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: alanabit SC - the reason that my post at 1016 your time is under "Guest" is that my cookie was not working at the time. My point was simply |
|
04 Jan 02 - 11:22 AM (#620908) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,in the mudcat observatory tower guest sherlock h., it is okay with me if you hide behind the anonymity of being a guest. i do not see any greater honor in hiding behind the anonymity of being known only by your initials. one thing i've always wondered. are sc's intitials really "sc" or did he make them up as his silly mudcat name? |
|
04 Jan 02 - 11:23 AM (#620909) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: alanabit Sorry - hit the wrong buttons. My point was that most of us can work out why the building fell down. I agree entirely that neither Muslims nor Arabs should be stigmatised because of the appalling tragedy. Plenty of the victims were Arabs and Muslims too. I'm staying out of this thread now. I'm not interested in spiteful exchanges either here or anywhere else. |
|
04 Jan 02 - 11:56 AM (#620938) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,pc By sc's logic, referring to the hijackers as "Arab-Muslim mass murderers" implies that all Arab-Muslims are mass murderers. Strangely, I did not see sc object in another thread when Rick Fielding was described as a "Canadian musician." The same logic would imply that all Canadians are muscians. Go Sherlock! |
|
04 Jan 02 - 12:14 PM (#620957) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: PeteBoom Ummmm.... Not to be picky - but I'm going to be. It has been stated above a couple of times. 1. The impact of the aircraft damaged, but did not destroy either of the towers. 2. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel racing through the open galleries (what every office building in the US built after @ 1970 is, regardless of building code used), down elevator shafts and into open areas, when set alight will weaken, and in some cases melt, steel. One of the chronologies of 9/11 I read recently was patched together from several sources. It seems that one of the chiefs told Guilliani about the same time as the second aircraft hit, that they were reasonably sure they could "save everybody below the fire". The first, partial, collapse of the first tower would have sent the weight of the debris onto the levels immediately beow the impact. The openings in the floor surface resulting from that would have allowed the burning fuel and debris to start working its way down. The Empire State Building WOULD have been turned into rubble if hit by a modern aircraft. The Mitchell did damage the facade when it hit - the facade on the WTC was metal and glass - not enough to resist a jet aircraft travelling at speeds many times faster than a twin-engine B-25 could dream of going. Regarding surrounding structural steel with masonry - this is a false argument. Cracks, fissures and holes in the masonry caused by the shock of the impact would have delayed the inevitable - at best by a few minutes. To use masonry as a skin as the Empire State Building has - would be to build that high and not much higher. The mechanics involved would not work to allow the structures to get higher. Should office buildings be that tall? Well, either build up or out. Pick one. There - that's my tuppence to this silly thread... Pete |
|
04 Jan 02 - 12:27 PM (#620963) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: sc GUEST,pc Canadians are not likely to be assualted or have homes or places of woship bombed because of statements like Rick's. Hard line racist remarks like "Arab-Muslim Mass-murderers" are frequently extrapolated to acts of violence. I consider the utterance of such venom akin to shouting "fire" in the theater. The time has come for an end to hatred. GUEST,Tower
|
|
04 Jan 02 - 12:40 PM (#620973) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,pc Reading through this thread, it would seem that gender neutral member sc is the only one who draws the conclusion that the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were Arab-Muslim mass murderers implies that all Arab-Muslims are mass murderers. Gender neutral member sc is certainly a silly he/she. |
|
04 Jan 02 - 03:39 PM (#621081) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: M.Ted Amazing that the reason for the collapse of the WTC was so obvious to so many--If it was so obvious,why didn't you mention it before 9/11? And why do you know so much more than the idiot who blew it up? He, a contractor and structural engineer, didn't even think it would collapse-- |
|
05 Jan 02 - 10:08 AM (#621478) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: raredance Because it is "obvious" that a big enough bomb can bring down a large building does not mean that there was an easy fix at the time of construction. Evacuation routes would be safer is there were stairwells in all four corners (assuming the building is rectangluar). However, that would eliminate the corner offices with windows looking out in two directions and that command the premium rent. It is possible to construct a large building that would be relatively impenetrable to large aircraft by adding a hard shell to the reinforced core columns. Besides adding cost, that would also eliminate windows. The chief attraction of tall office buildings is the ability to look out over the world from the offices. A 100 story building with no windows would be largely unrentable. You might as well build underground. I am guessing that for at least the next generation, new construction in major cities will be buildings about the same height as surrounding buildings so nothing sticks out. rich r |
|
06 Jan 02 - 08:33 AM (#622092) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Mooh It strikes me that when mankind sets out to build, it is done in peace and with peace in mind. Considering, predicting, and anticipating the heights of evil-doing would prevent the progress and development of human endeavor. The WTC was well-built and maintained, but there is nothing which can be built today which would withstand the worst of evil-doing. In short, our capacity to destroy is greater than our capacity to build. The only thing which keeps a peaceful balance is the will of humankind to remain peaceful. It's a long, hard road. Peace, Love, and Understanding. Mooh. |
|
06 Jan 02 - 03:26 PM (#622260) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: M.Ted Things tend to be obvious only in retrospect rich--lucky for that, too, because it is the only way we can keep on going-- |
|
06 Jan 02 - 04:30 PM (#622288) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Jack the Sailor Ro1sin. I think the BBC Article posted by Rana answers youroriginal question. The main pillars of the building Were encased in concrete, they collapsed anyway. There is am implication through out this tread that buildings should be made strong enough to withstand attacks. I'm sorry to say that is just silly. The Pentagon was one of the most office fortified buildings in the world. THe part which was struck was the most fortified part. but had it been fully occupied the death toll there might have been thousands. There is NO building or fortification which will stand up to a determined attack. We should have learned that from watchin the Airforce go after Osama's cave. There were probably 50,000 people in the trade Center at the time of the attack. Only 4000 were lost. THe builders archetects and emergency personnel are to be commended. not condemned. As to the bit about the Arab Muslims. Go back and read GUESTS posts. He stresses that word's and places them in such away that there is no doubt that he is placing at least part of the blame on the Hijackers ethnicity. So the argument is not about theoretical uses of the words but a specific, racist, narrow minded usage. Is this a terrible post. Except for GUESTS obviously racist, insulting, and inflamatory Post And for all of the comments on what a horrible post it is. I think not. What I mean is I think that ro1sin has every right to pose the question that even if we believe he is wrong, he deserves our respect. I have to take much of the responsibility for the tenor of this post, but I think I have been clear as to why. Does GUEST, considering the tone of his statements, deserve our sympathy? Espesially considering he knows full well that we have no way of knowing even if the the person claiming to be Bill Hawkins is the same person. If you want my sympathy GUEST, Register and PM me. I'll send you an email address and we can talk. But what you are doing now is like scrawling on a bathroom wall. Even if it does say "Pity me! Those Arab Moslims killed my brother." I'd feel foolish taking it seriously. |
|
06 Jan 02 - 05:17 PM (#622318) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: catspaw49 Jack, I think that several of us were reasonably clear in stating that the idea of making buildings strong enough to withstand an attack of such magnitude is somewhat ludicrous. For that reason, it seems to me to be equally ludicrous to somehow try to affix blame for the collapse. So, going one step beyond, I personally find the idea behind the thread (why) to be silly. It seemed to me that affixing blame or having a learning experience from the structural failure, both being a waste of time and energy, was the actual point of the thread. What's the point? As far as the Guest postings go, I couldn't agree with you more. Spaw |
|
06 Jan 02 - 07:52 PM (#622417) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt to jack and all I said in my original thread that one of the reasond that the WTC fell down was that it was not built to New York City Building Codes But was built to New York STATE code which was much less stringent I rest my case and stand by my original statement thank you all for your interest roisin |
|
07 Jan 02 - 08:31 AM (#622651) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Whistle Stop I didn't think the original question was all that silly. Sure, the obvious answer is that the towers fell down because they were hit by huge airplanes full of jet fuel. But you can be sure that current and future architects will be considering these questions to a greater degree than they ever did before; not becuase they expect to build buildings that are able to withstand anything thrown at them, but because they want to make sure to build them as strongly as is reasonably possible, and they have a new set of considerations (and, unfortunately, a new test-case) to factor into their thinking. One thing that I have not seen mentioned, and that WAS talked about before 9/11, was the folly of having the US military headquarters in a building that is probably more recognizable from the air than any other building on earth. It is an enormous five-sided structure, built in the 1940s when we DID know a lot about what aerial bombardment can do to buildings. Eyewitnesses on 9/11 reported that the plane that hit the Pentagon first soared over downtown Washington, and there was speculation that the Pentagon was a secondary target chosen because the pilot could not identify the White House from the air. I don't know whether or not this is actually what happened, but it seems possible. It's worth considering that there are other ways to make buildings less vulnerable to air attack, besides encasing the structural steel in concrete. |
|
07 Jan 02 - 01:27 PM (#622777) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt Yes whistle stop the laws that govern the building of large buildings will be more strenously enforced and the codes will be updated |
|
07 Jan 02 - 03:25 PM (#622839) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: 53 it got hit by a airplane, as if you had'nt already heard, and that's the reason it fell, boy do your homework, and don't ask such stupid questions. BOB |
|
07 Jan 02 - 04:19 PM (#622874) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: PeteBoom Actually, Bob, the Empire State Building was hit by an airplane. The WTC was hit by two jet aircraft. According to most pundits I've heard, a jet aircraft of the same size or type of aircraft that hit the WTC, would do similar damage to the Empire State Building. Engineers do not design non-military structures to withstand attack. 'K - I'm done with this thread... |
|
07 Jan 02 - 05:14 PM (#622897) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: GUEST,in the Mudcat Observatory Tower Reading through this thread, it seems that the Mudcat politically correct orthodoxy has determined that referring to the 9/11 mass murderers as "Arab-Muslim" is racist. The fact of matter is, and remains, that every single one of the 9/11 mass murderers was an Arab-Muslim. All published and broadcast information, has indicated that being an Arab-Muslim was an essential qualification for this evil mission. It is racist to deny that component of the discourse. Does that mean that any Arab-Muslim who did not participate in the events 9/11 deserves any guilt by association? Of course not, only a racist would say so. |
|
07 Jan 02 - 08:12 PM (#623019) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt i too am through with this thread 4 ever roisin |
|
07 Jan 02 - 09:00 PM (#623039) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: 53 me three. BOB |
|
12 May 02 - 03:29 PM (#709609) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt I was asked to add to a thread so... This thursday May 16 NOva is going to have a show on why the WTC fell down |
|
12 May 02 - 07:53 PM (#709781) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: Noreen You were asked to add to a music thread... |
|
12 May 02 - 10:25 PM (#709859) Subject: RE: BS: why did the wtc fall down From: tremodt no noreen you are wrong at any rate i am adding it here why do you ANSWER THREADS TYHAT DONE HAVE ANY THING TO DO W MUSIC ???? |