|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:53 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Hi
I am sure the intire WTC is a complicated issue, but the expantion in rigid structures and the collapse resons for this great structure is different than what will show in future structures beside, I find the wtc 7 collapse just as relevant here a very tradisional structure seem even veaker this fell even no planes hit.
Here in copenhagen we se how just the exact same steel and glass surfaces ,that form the most boring architecture, is just formed in new cold forms, and is said to represent the future to come, as if just forming the clotches different bring new jobs and and a trust in future.
Per Corell |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi, Per!
WTC 7 collapsed fried by the burning fuel from 400-ton tank located in its basement. Apart from the question, why it collapsed from just the fire, the main question has been how - and first of all why - the tank caught the fire. Nobody ever bothered to answer.
Nobody sane would locate an unprotected or ill-protected fuel tank in the basement of a building unless it is a building nobody cares for, e.g. one by government. The Port Authority of NY & NJ should have been striped of the right to issue building permits, i.e. of its exemption from building code jurisdiction, allowing for corruption.
Like with the WTC tower collapse, the main lesson seem to be dealing not with technical aspect (already known quite well), but rather with corruption of governmental capital (and non-capital, e.g. military) projects. We had known way before the 1960’s, how to build much safer than WTC was built. We can joke that WTC 7 fall down after got scared of the towers’ collapse.
USA has been a source of a significant progress in building technology to make it more affordable, i.e. cheaper. It is fine to build cheap as long it is safe. But sometimes things (projects) sleep out of control, because of a variety reasons, but mainly of a lack of ownership (or rather owner’s attention) through corruption well exemplified by communism.
So, a solution seems to make public of whole process of governmental capital (and non-capital, e.g. military) projects through the Internet, because recently it became feasible for the first time ever to publish fast and practically for free every step in detail. Working at Dormitory Authority of NY, a few times, I requested from designer to send capital project submission drawings in the electronic *.gif format invoked instantaneously by AutoCAD by just a simple command (after pressing just one button). Then I emailed them instead of sending paper copies. They could have been posted on the Internet as well.
If WTC 7 Basement Plan with the 400-ton fuel tank had been posted on the Internet, I doubt it would have passed through public scrutiny. If project bureaucrats’ salary increase and good standing depended on not exceeding project budgets increased by 5-10% reserve, I doubt you would see so many budget overruns and corruption. We have to scrutinize government for our good and safety to realize our ownership’s attention, without which things tend to get bad.
This seems to be the main WTC collapse lesson.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone,
If you entered as the key words in Google search engine the title of my critique published here three (3) days ago “FEMA contradicts laws of physics in the WTC collapse Study!”, you got as first the page http://marketplace.designcommunity.com/search.php?search_author=Richard+Haut&showresults=posts showing results of Search for Author Richard Haut (who did not write the article, but only the responses) with the option Display results as Posts clicked on in effect very effectively misinforming, what the article is about. The appropriate pages http://arch.designcommunity.com/forum-6.html or http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/forum-6.html are way dawn at the bottom of Google search results.
Is it possible that Google does not like truth about FEMA Study or DesignCommunity.com included such a search result page for posts of Richard Haut on its server for Google to find it first? Six irrelevant results after the result for posts of Richard Haut and ahead of the appropriate results, which until yesterday had been still displayed as the first and second, suggest that Google is at fault. What a pity Google!!! How much they paid you to do this?
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kevin,
Thanks for partially remedying the problem. Still, providing at all the search for Richard or his posts as results of Google search for my article is misleading especially now, when the most recent Richard’s posts are not on the article’s subject, but on the subsequent and irrelevant issue of this regretful manipulation.
You can still do better by removing at all of providing search for Richard or his posts, because a Google search for my article makes them fully available, as subsequent to the article, i.e. immediately following it and within its context. On the other hand, Richard’s posts alone, as provided now, are out of the context, so they are misleading!
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
an interesting article and the groups and organizations that you expose certainly have a long history of misleading tactics and bad business policy...except for maybe FEMA, who usually seems to be in the peoples interest... but maybe we should consider their past and future work, especially in the face of hurricane season in the south...
the one point i wasn't able to grasp though was how do you propose the misleading tactics in the report are somehow connected to the war in iraq? how could a 'truthful' report about the WTC collapse have an effect on the starting of a war half way around the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iraq was being punished for a crime that it did not commit.
therefore it was essential to avoid an honest investigation of that crime - or the basis for the attack on Iraq would have been further undermined.
it is uncomfortable to realise that in the build-up to the attack on Iraq, of the three leaders directly involved - Bush, Blair and Saddam - the only one speaking the truth was the thug Saddam Hussein.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First – a better copy of the article FEMA contradicts laws of physics in the WTC collapse Study! is available at http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/117550, as a result of another hour of studying HTML, but a full copy with all the pictures is in the making.
Second – the answer to the question posted above: “How misleading the public by FEMA about the WTC collapse could have strengthen reasons to wage the war in Iraq?” is complex. If WTC was built correctly, it should have burned out and not collapsed (including WTC 7 collapsed also by the burning 400 t of fuel from the tank placed irresponsibly in its basement), so the material damage would have been much smaller, and there would have been much fewer victims among almost 1000, who died under the zones of impact in and around the both towers.
So, though Bin Laden attacked WTC, the Port Authority of NY & NJ finished it off by allowing for design flaws that contributed to the collapse. Because contributing to the extent of damage and number of victims of WTC collapse weakened the argument for the retribution war in Iraq, so hiding the weakening argument (and blaming the attackers for all) strengthened reasons for the war in Iraq.
Many people asked the question: “If the damage and number of victims of the WTC collapse had been smaller, would they have supported the war in Iraq to the same degree they did?” said - guess what… – that they would not have been. The notion, that the retribution should have been proportional to the damage, is quite obvious since the Hammurabi Code (the punishment should fit the crime, or the reward should fit the act).
Misrepresenting the WTC collapse had been even more important than misrepresenting the Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction, because being partially responsible for the WTC collapse undermined (at least partially) the base for retribution against anyone at all. In other words, with the full fault for the WTC collapse on Bin Laden the question was not about the retribution, only whom to hit, but with partially our fault for the collapse, even the retribution itself would have got questioned much more.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ah i see...
wouldn't it make more sense to talk about the war in afghanistan instead of iraq... it seems to me, that the war in iraq was going to happen no matter what...b/c it really has little to do with 9/11 outside of an emotional factor... in the end the UN resolutions were enough of an excuse to enter iraq and they existed for years...
so if i were you maybe i would talk about the war in afghanistan which wasn't necessarily on anyone's radar, besides the fact that clinton had warned the taliban that by harbouring bin laden they would be held responsible for his future actions...
with that said... no matter what amount of damage was done probably would have resulted in an attack on bin laden...
no matter what the design... everyone in the planes would have been dead...everyone on the floors that the plane struck would have been dead... and anyone above those floors would have died...no matter how long the buildings stood... there was no way through the destroyed floors
so i think the difference in casualties wouldn't have been so great that they wouldn't have warranted a military response from the united states...
i think adding the part about iraq only weakens your argument |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It does not, because solutions for technical problems are different from political ones. It is unreasonable to expect that an explanation for political FEMA motif will be a rigorous kind used to brake the technically indolent Study of the WTC collapse. Jet, both kinds have a common part.
Before cracking the WTC collapse, I had used probabilities of individual possibilities, and sought a solution satisfying all evidence and maximizing probability of most suitable possibilities until a rigorous (100 %) solution appeared, i.e. explaining everything precisely and not contradicted by anything. Nothing can weaken the 100 % precision of the rigorous technical solution of the WTC collapse, even the accompanying speculatively looking political solution. 2+2=4 regardless who says it, and why! It is not a hypothesis.
For political solution probabilities are only possibility, because it is doubtful that hard evidence could be found. But in this particular case war in Iraq is the only possibility, because the defensive war in Afghanistan was obvious for everyone, and did not require any solicitation, unlike the weak cause for the war in Iraq. So, since there is only one possible motif, it has to be it. It is so simple with politics! Look for who gains on the aggressive war, if you want to explain it, because a pretext for the aggressive war can always be fabricated, as the history teaches us.
I have introduced the political aspect only to make the article more controversial hoping that the controversy will attract more attention. I am not interested in the political aspect at all, but only the legal one. Since I resolved the technical aspect, my political analysis would have more credibility than anyone else’s, so I added it to the explanation for the 9/11 Commission in the article published here not really carrying much for why FEMA did it, but there is not any other explanation, because the matter is too serious, and FEMA tricks are too obvious and primitive.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well i think your comments there show exactly why you should not include the iraq stuff in your article... it is not as strong as the technical aspect and you will just weaken your good arguement by "trying to be contraversial"
furthermore, you call afghanistan a 'defensive war' which there are plenty of people who can argue to the contrary on that issue... there was plenty to gain by attacking afghanistan
and i still don't see how you think the body count at the WTC can be directly connected to the iraq war...the war in iraq could be traced back through several UN actions and documents... whereas i would say the afghanistan action is far more directly related to body count at the WTC...
US soldiers died on the USS cole but we didn't invade afghanistan even the embassy bombings... i think this is the example that would illustrate the fact that there had to be a certain number of casualties to prompt an invasion...
i just don't think there is a very good connection b/w WTC and Iraq... and you only do yourself an injustice by including that in your arguement that is otherwise very clear and interesting.... why throw that all away in the name of being contraversial? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Webster Dictionary provides: "defend – to guard from attack; keep from harm or danger; protect". I believe that Bin Laden intended to attack again, and hunting him down in Afghanistan was an attempt (not well done) to keep us from his harm or danger, and to protect. Gaining seems to be irrelevant to the defense definition.
The answer to your question “how [...] the body count at the WTC can be directly connected to the Iraq war” is followed by your own words “that there had to be a certain number of casualties to prompt an invasion...” in the same posting. Since that aspect is for a controversy only, I will not support it anymore.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i meant the invasion of afghanistan...
US lives had been lost on the USS cole and the embassies while bin laden was in afghanistan... but those loses didn't seem enough to prompt an invasion of AFGHANISTAN...
i don't think any body count was necessary for iraq... iraq is in no way associated with the events of 9/11 except through some rhetoric... iraq was going to be dealt with eventually with 9/11 or not...
eitherway, i'm happy you will leave out the conrtaversy for contraversy's sake part... people would just label you as trying to be inflammatory and totally over look the very important and noble case presented by all of your work... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
I just wonder, --- when you carry one ton up 100 meter this ask a lot of energy. Now if 1000 ton fall one meter all that energy that first was used to bring up those 1000 tons one meter is relised ,the energy do not just disapear it is made into heat energy.
I wonder if this fact is taken into acount when calculating the amount of heat during the collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
