It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NWO bridge- A concept design.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
This might sound like a radical idea. But take a look at this image.


New World Order Bridge.
QuickImageHosting.com...


Now, think about this, a bridge that connects the US to Europe. With 10 lanes each way. Sounds good doesn't it? just another one of my radical ideas to change the way we think and challenge the airline industries to think about being fair and safe. I don't fly, and I'd rather drive. It's safer, and that will bring in more tourists to America. It can be built in 10 years, safe and secure. Who thinks this could actually work? and would you drive to Europe if you had the opportunity? I sure as hell would. Gas stops at certain points, rest stops and restaurants along the way.




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
It'd be a lot less radical if the NWO bridge was connected to Asia over the Aleutians. Alaska to Russia, in a world with one government, would make that plausable, don't you think?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
It'd be a lot less radical if the NWO bridge was connected to Asia over the Aleutians. Alaska to Russia, in a world with one government, would make that plausable, don't you think?



Oh, absolutely! I guess it we would have to start with smaller bridges first, connecting each country one by one. We could produce artificial islands for the pillars and connectors and such. but yes, eventually have the entire world, connected by bridges.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Interesting idea! Nevertheless, I do not think it will happen… see the bridge that is to be built ought to be very sturdy because it’s going to be on the Atlantic Ocean and that ocean is very “moody” lol. Anyway, it would take millions of billions of dollars and millions of people who work in construction to build it.
And there is another setback, the American continent is moving away from the European continent (very slowly though).

Moreover, seeing now long the bridge is going to be as you have said there has to be some points where there should be gas stations plus restaurants, these places require people to operate them and you have to remember that these people have to have places to rest! that means they need homes in the vicinity to have quick access to there work, in addition to that my friend constructing houses on this bridge… that will take more than 10 years to erect and put together, maybe 30 years if not 45.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Ah... you mean something like this:



Note the various bridges crossing the Atlantic.

The Borg -- The Ultimate NWO



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
That would have to build mass land areas its not just going to take a few hours to drive over to Europe!

Probably few days im sure as it takes about 24 hrs from PA-FL in the united states

neat idea though! I think the NWO is good and bad in ways



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


yea Lol. what a design. pasting the 2D image of a bridge over that. well i have to point something out. about the bridge. lets say the speed limit is kept around 70-90 mph. or even 100, then how long do you think its gonna take to cross? 3 days, five days? a week/? and i think its possible the least plausable bridge ever suggested.

if you think about the way you could have the bridge suspended, it would either use supports from the ocean bottom, or float, but then what about the big waves? and how many petrol stations would you need, then the little fact of how do THE BOATS go past it? I mean, man you must be either really stupid, or taking the piss.

I think it better you get over your fears of flying, than suggest propostrous, mountrously implausible ideas over the internet.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by korai
 


yes.hard but true.
nonsense.

theres too much crap and disinfo posted here.sorry.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   
ok then, bridge bad idea..
how about a supertrain? on a smaller bridge..the train going about 200mph or so. do you guys like that idea? Monorail type train floating above the water on pillars and such.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Wouldn't this be a lot easier:

Russia - USA tunnel

I remember hearing many years ago of rumours of a tunnel from the US to the UK, but I really don't see how this would be possible either!!! As for the bridge idea, come on, really????



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I would hate to be stuck underwater when the train breaks down. I think that if something went wrong down there, you'd run out of oxigen. I'd rather be above water, if the train derails at least I'll be able to swim to safety..something I can't do on a plane or underwater.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


I don't think making that bridge would happen.

Why? Because I believe the storms and earthquakes, all kinds of environment changes and weather could easily damage the long bridge like that. Then it would easily get divided and sink into the ocean. Plus, it would cost thousands and thousands of lives of drivers and travellers.

As for Russia - USA tunnel, it may be possible since it isn't a far distance from alaska to rus

[edit on 25-12-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheoOne

I don't think making that bridge would happen.

Why? Because I believe the storms and earthquakes, all kinds of environment changes and weather could easily damage the long bridge like that. Then it would easily get divided and sink into the ocean. Plus, it would cost thousands and thousands of lives of drivers and travellers.

As for Russia - USA tunnel, it may be possible since it isn't a far distance from alaska to rus


true, probably won't happen. just an idea. I'm not too crazy about the russia USA tunnel. i'd have to drive all the way to canada and cross miles of snow. it's not too convenient for me, I live in california. I haven't flown since 1989. and I don't plan to fly..unless something really important happens that I have to.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Here's a wiki for about the 'TransGlobal Highway'
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
There are theoretical plans in existance for a transatlantic tunel.

It would be submerged and anchored to the sea floor, with winches that could change the length of the cables if needed (accidents, storms) to compensate for the forces exerted.

Then, they would have to suck out all air, to get a vacuum, for the maglev trains to be able to travel faster. (I think it was mach 8)


As i said, this is all theoretical, and not all of the problems were solved, with the largest being the money, of course.


They did mention, however, that this would have a better chance of success, than a bridge.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Your idea is lame. (I'm kidding but being realistically critical).

Hovercraft is uber safe and faster.

Concorde

Rocket (includes the inevitible rafting and costs alot).



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I don't fly, and I'd rather drive. It's safer,


I think you will find this is incorrect.
How far (in miles) is it from coast to coast? How many cars could be on that bridge at any one time? How many casualties would there be if that bridge collapsed? How long would it take rescue services to attend an emergency in the middle?
Without going into too much detail, I would say this is a bad idea.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller

I don't fly, and I'd rather drive. It's safer . . . .



I disagree. It seems every single day I hear something on the news about at least one car accident, but it is not all that often that I hear about aircraft crashing.

Here's an article I found that explores this:
www.piercelaw.edu...

As for your original thought about how people might prefer to travel on this bridge rather than fly... Not me! I would rather have a couple of drinks and sleep through a long flight than drive that distance. By the time you got to Europe, you would have used up several days of your vacation time already. Not to mention the nightmare that traffic would be. Every driven through Houston at rush hour? That's the closest thing I could think of to your ten-lane bridge scenario. No thank you!! Imagine if there's a wreck? That many people slowing down to look would be awful.

Also, how would you handle the fact that people in the US and people in Europe tend not to drive on the same side of the road? On this bridge, which side would be the "correct" side?

Lastly, you mentioned that with a train system, you would rather be above water than below, because then you could at least swim to safety. The rail system would have to be built kind of high above the water to keep it from being washed out by waves. If you were able to swim anywhere, it would be to a support that I doubt you could hold onto, let alone climb.

I'll just take my chances with air travel, and hope that if my plane goes down, the whole thing is over with quickly.

Interesting idea, but I am not buying. I do absolutely love the picture of the bridge, though!



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad


I disagree. It seems every single day I hear something on the news about at least one car accident, but it is not all that often that I hear about aircraft crashing.



You never see 300 people dying in a car accident at the same time. You also can't break while in a plane and use your experience to avoid accidents. I am a good driver and If my car breaks down or get's a flat I can immediately use my skills to get off the road. You can't do that in a plane.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join