l do think the engineers were trying to create a structure that would take multiple hits from aircraft and fuel burning temps were factored in. Also, you can find footage of skyscrapers that burn for weeks without falling down.
Indeed. That is something that a military force would do if it didn't increase the risk to themselves. Wars are supposed to be fought with honor and military operations are supposed to minimize civilian casualties. Terrorists have no honor, at least not outside their own twisted thinking. In fact they deliberately target civilians as a way of terrorizing them so that they will lobby their government to give in to the demands of the terrorists. As I have posted elsewhere, terrorism is extortion rather than warfare. It is the Mafia "protection" racket writ large. "Give us what we want or we'll kill your children."
If you think a moderator is not doing a good job then please PM any moderator, for example me. Don't just bitch about it to the other members and to all the prospective members who come here to see if they like the place. We can't keep up with each other's boards and know what's being written. But we know we're not perfect and we criticize each other on our private subforum all the time.
As noted, NYC changed the rules about asbestos when the WTC was half complete. Other fireproofing materials are heavier. The blueprints had to be changed when the bottom half of the structures were already built. There is controversy over just how much of an effect this had on the disaster. Nonetheless the terrorists clearly knew about it. They hit the buildings precisely within the ten-story zone right above the asbestos line that engineers agree was the "soft spot."
They did. It would be irresponsible not to. The probability is small but the damage is enormous so you have to take it seriously. The problem is that the bureaucrats second-guessed the engineers (as bureaucrats are wont to do) and forced them to jury-rig the upper half of the towers instead of building them the way they were designed. As I said, there's much controversy over how much effect this had. But to me, the fact that the building was designed to withstand the impact of an airliner crash, and DIDN'T, means that we should at least think about blaming the bureaucrats. Leaving the asbestos out of HALF of those two buildings probably saved something like two lives that would have been lost to cancer over 100 years. Instead, by taking the risk and tempting fate, we've lost 3,000 people.
According to your link, he didn't get insurance that clearly applied to the kind of event that occurred - he had to go to court to get his interpretation of some apparently non-specific language enforced.neitszchefan said:
There were a lot of odd circumstances involved. People have cause to be suspicious. But wild speculations about Mission Impossible secret demolition rigging is a deflection of those suspicions down easily handled paths.clustering said:
Because this is the only way the anti-American, President Bush hating, love all the Islamofascists, socialist promoting whack jobs can keep blaming the problem on everyone and everything but where it belongs.
As I've noted elsewhere, anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East was fomented throughout the Cold War, when the Soviets and the CIA used the region as their private chessboard and treated the people who lived there as expendable pawns. Every postwar administration--Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and the Retard, five Democrats and six Republicans--has contributed to their resentment of us (and the Soviets of course but now they're gone).
These "loonies" have plenty of reason to hate us. The guilt does not rest entirely on the head of The First President With Pre-Senile Dementia, or even on the G.O.P., but there's more than enough to go around and no one in Washington is blameless.
I've been wondering if there were anything that switched off the judgment module of the reactionary mind faster than "terrorist" - of course there is: "environmentalist".
Blast! I read it "the termite thing", and thought someone had the theory that 9/11 building collapse was really caused by termites!
FR, you missed what I was saying. The 'loonies' who hate the U. S. and to whom I referred are those U. S. born 'truthers' who feel their mission in life is to be ashamed of the U. S. At the moment, that means hating President Bush; just as they hated President Johnson in the '60s and then President Nixon for the overwhelming sin of fighting communism. These are the people who simply have to believe the Twin Towers attack was 'an inside job'. If it were not, then they couldn't hate President Bush for it. Not only that, but they would then have to support President Bush in the effort to combat Islamofascist terrorism.
I've become increasingly ashamed of the U.S. ever since the Religious Redneck Retard Revival began reversing all the intellectual and social progress we made in the 1960s and early 1970s. I'm especially ashamed of it now because I have no answers for many of the quite reasonable criticisms made, even right here by my friends on SciForums. I've been antagonistic to our government for years, since the checks and balances stopped functioning and it has been consolidating power at a dizzying rate. I haven't liked the presidents in my lifetime very much except Eisenhower and Clinton, but I hold Carter and the two Bushes directly responsible for our problems in the Middle East. When I saw the Twin Towers fall, my first reaction was, "This was bound to happen, we and the Russians used the Middle East as a chessboard for forty years and we still have Christian soldiers stationed near Mecca."
