Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Here's a grip.
Buildings built in recent history are designed in such a way to collapse onto themselves. I suspect many buildings that would be considered government buildings or close, already have certain changes built in for this purpose.
It makes a building easier to destroy by those who know how to do it.
There is a picture claiming to depict a small missile heading in, but if you know about photography and lenses you dismiss that as inconclusive.
Somewhat harder to dismiss is seismic data, like from the OKC bombing.
Tell you this much, my buddy was a union bricklayer. He was working on a new Federal Reserve building. They got a few days off for no good reason. No, it wasn't a trainee day or anything like that, in THAT union you know if and when this is going to happen. They came back and a bunch or work was done.
Whether the building was equipped with charges or merely with places to put them and planned weaknesses, the result is the same. More people died. Why might be a subject for another thread, but real quick, why was there a daycare center right inside of a law enforcement building in OKC before McVeigh took care of it ? Shock value.
At any rate, buildings generally have a finite life. That is a legitimate reason to build them to facilitate demolition yet be strong enough for the purpose during their service life. There is another reason for some to do it, like if the building is captured by an enemy.
Look at what happened. If the building was built to last 1,000 years, everything would've collapsed of course, but I don't think it would've all the way down. The next few floors below where the plane hit should of course be screwed up, but I think with proper construction at least the few bottom floors should've been OK. That is where the most strength is in a tall building.
A building of the footprint of the WTC would either have to have support beams all over the place or use prestressed concrete for the floors. Either there were breakaways, or they used load bearing walls with only vertical compressional strength, so they would be easy to knock down and facilitate it falling 'into' itself.
There are so many explanations possible, but I got the main explanation. We fucked with the world a bit too much.
I heard about the drone story. You know they can remotely fly an aircraft, however there seems to be no proof that this is was happened. Of course the proof would be unattainable anyway.
I also heard about the person who supposedly called from their cellphone. Now I don't know it all, but I know quite a bit about technology. Cellphones communicate with towers on the ground. They have no reason to worry about someone in the friggin ionosphere, so to conserve power the antennae are directional downward. They might be totally omnidirectional, but only in a ½ sphere. Therefore it is HIGHLY unlikely that a cellphone would work in flight. They tell you to turn them off because cellphones, like modern cordlesses check for an open channel as soon as they go off hook. If they can't find one they keep searching, and therefore might hit a frquency that could screw with the operation of the craft, or a hospital for that matter. That's why they tell you to turn them off.
I also saw two different stories about just where Bush was, one is that he saw the first plane hit on the TV, but another says he was an a gradeschool classroom at the time. Which is it ? enquiring minds might want to know, but I think it's a moot point.
I also heard about some orders for NORAD to stand down, all kind of shit flying.
To me, doesn't matter. I KNOW they are out for themselves and don't give a rat's ass about us. So what's the difference really ? Can't do anything about it.
The whole thing is this, when you got this much shit flying around, it is hard to tell the bullshit from the horseshit and so forth.
What happened at VA tech happened, what happened at Columbine happened. The Columbine shooters were on antidepressants. I wonder what the VA tech shooters were on.
And are the drugs the Columbine shooters on banned ? The same type of drugs is blamed for many suicides.
I can understand that there are some valid motivations for OKC and the WTC. But going into a classroom and opening up on a bunch of people ? Why ? Did they fuck with them that much, did they all hate him and call him names and all that ? This is college in VA. You can usually get away from those you do not get along with. I could almost see getting into it with the college administrators, whatever, but the STUDENTS ?
Let's not go there. These things happen and every time they do the good old gov is going to save us with a few more thousand pages of laws.
I say arm the teachers. If I send my kids somewhere I want someone armed to protect them. A twelve year old kid said that in a classroom discussion about the Columbine incident and their response was to try to put him in counselling. What does that tell you ?
Also pilots are not happy, they could be armed, but for some reason it just can't happen. Reason, the people who need to be shot the most decide if people can have guns. My Dad had an interesting slant on that ; "What are you stupid ? They don't care about the people, they care about the plane. You put a bullet hole in a commercial jet, do you have any comprehension of how much that costs to fix ?".
He has a point. If he's right, it fits, everything is for money.
I will stop now, much more would be a thread hijack. I'm trying to cut down.
T
|
The Big Lie! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread