My theory on WTC7

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

(WTC building 7 is the first building of it's size anywhere to have ever been bought down by fire alone)

With overwhelming evidence people still can't accept the truth.
Rather than face up to what really happened we create excuses for it.
We'd rather believe half ass attempts at covering the truth (popular mechanics) and lame theories, than have to face what is really going on.
Because facing the real truth means you might have to re-think your whole belief system.
Because facing the truth might make you have to actually do something about it.
It makes it very hard to get up in the morning and go work for the system, when you know that system is built on lies.
America is in classic denial mode, the truth is staring us in the face but we choose to ignore and deny. You can go down with the ship or wake up and try to make sure the ship don't sink. You don't realize that your support of the government is not a support for America, but a support for corporations. Corporations don't have an elegance to any country, they go where they can make the most profit. They don't care about you or me, only what we can do for them. Corporations are the NWO, the one world government. They'll let America burn and die if they feel it's necessary for their survival.


Anok, I wholeheartetly agree with everything you say here. What you say sums up my world view quite accurately.

Please don't assume that questioning the conspiracy based hypotheses means that I am for the system in any way. Questions that lead to answers are always worth asking, in my opinioin.


Originally posted by ANOK
OK so just how would they do that?



Well I'm not a structural engineer, and so I could only offer semi-educated speculation as to how this is achieved, which probably won't do. What i don't need to speculate on though is that more and more, engineers are required to plan and account for every conceivable eventuality in their designs, so the notion that the towers could be designed to reduce the area affected in the event of collapse is, from an engineering point of view, quite logical.




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul

Anok, I wholeheartetly agree with everything you say here. What you say sums up my world view quite accurately.

Please don't assume that questioning the conspiracy based hypotheses means that I am for the system in any way. Questions that lead to answers are always worth asking, in my opinioin.

Well I'm not a structural engineer, and so I could only offer semi-educated speculation as to how this is achieved, which probably won't do. What i don't need to speculate on though is that more and more, engineers are required to plan and account for every conceivable eventuality in their designs, so the notion that the towers could be designed to reduce the area affected in the event of collapse is, from an engineering point of view, quite logical.


OK Sry, the question was for you and the rant was for the general public...LOL I should have made that more clear.

Why would they want a building to collapse at all? What about the people still inside? Anybody who could be escaping from maybe lower floors not on fire would then die also. IMHO It would be much better to allow the building to stand at all costs, then demolish it later when they can do it safely.
Anyway the building were of a honeycomb design, able to withstand damage to one side and still remain standing.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
No worries mate. It was a good rant though and I'm glad you posted it, 'cause its a view I share but am less eloquent at expressing.

I know what you're saying. Its far from an ideal structural contingency design, but as you're most likely well aware - ideals take a back seat to economic viability, and even in such extreme contingency planning life saving is offset by economics. I mean, not only for loss of life, how much worse would it have been for the insurers, financiers and big buck property owners if the collapsing twin towers had not only killed everyone inside, but also toplled like trees taking out half a dozen blocks of prime NY real estate?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   
If WTC 1 & 2 were designed back in the 70s to collapse on their footprints then why hasn't this technique been applied to all tall buildings since as it would save fortunes on hiring demolition teams to do the job and bringing the building down could be like a big Guy Fawkes party*, just light the wick and away she's burns, then falls.

(*for all non-Brits this is the lighting of bonfires and fireworks to commemorate the torching of Guy Fawkes who tried to blow up Parliament, bit like July 4th)



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
If WTC 1 & 2 were designed back in the 70s to collapse on their footprints then why hasn't this technique been applied to all tall buildings since as it would save fortunes on hiring demolition teams to do the job and bringing the building down could be like a big Guy Fawkes party*, just light the wick and away she's burns, then falls.

(*for all non-Brits this is the lighting of bonfires and fireworks to commemorate the torching of Guy Fawkes who tried to blow up Parliament, bit like July 4th)


There are guidlines issued by the SCOSS (Standing Commitee On Structural Safety) regarding non-didsproportionate collapse of buildings, but as far as I'm aware, this has yet to make it to proper legislation or building reg's.


[edit on 10-3-2005 by Paul]





 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join