Slashdot Mirror
Leaked FEMA/ASCE Draft Report On WTC Collapse
securitas writes "The New York Times obtained a copy of the World Trade Center draft report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers about the engineering failures that caused the towers to collapse. Among the findings: 'Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled and the fires generated heat equivalent to the energy output of a nuclear power plant' reports the NYT (Yahoo link). Amazingly, if it wasn't for the fire (or another secondary catastrophic force), the towers would have remained standing."
if it weren't for the 767s, massive fires, tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel, and the abliteration of the several floors worth of the buildings' structural cores, the towers would have remained standing. But, shhh, this is leaked info. Don't tell anyone.
Fire and objects at high speeds break things. Film at eleven.
I recently watched a well known (in the UK) documentary series called "Horizon" on the WTC disaster. It basically stated in no uncertain terms that the disaster was caused by the use of drywall for all the fireproof walling. The theory was that the explosions caused by the planes basically blew away the drywalling and so the heat from the flames which would have otherwise been slowed down by the drywall, would have been dramatically slowed down.
I wasn't sure whether to entirely believe the program or not, but it seemed fairly plausible. However I came away asking only one question: "So what would have been better?"
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I think most of us in the construction industry (architecture) were concerned about this as events were unfolding, even before the first tower collapsed. But the saddest part was finding out later that concessions had been made during design/construction in the sizing and configuration of sprinkler systems including the abscense of a rooftop water supply.
Who knows if it really would have helped, but having to second guess now is hardly comforting. As in most things, those that focus on stupid quantitative evaluations of design (cost per square foot for example) are doomed to come up short when all the chips are really down.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
what could have happened in case of a "normal" fire.
Not that such constructions have to be build to withstand such catastrophic events as an airplane crash, but if an uncontrolled fire could cause a building to collapse in such a short time one should rethink some building codes.
Would the Empire State Building have collapsed in case of a crash, with all its multiple redundancies built into its infrastructure?
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
SkyScrapers.com
On this site there was an Interview done with an engineer who had some knowledge on the World Trade Center. He stated that the airplanes could have not brought them down seeing that buildings of a lesser, equal, or greater size get the same sort of impact daily with the force of winds.
It is said that the airplanes caused an impact of equal or lesser force than what it would experience from day-to-day wind.
In my humble opinion, it's not very surprising the towers collapsed. Just imagine: the impact of a plane will cause several floors to lose integrity.. If those collapse it will cause a cascade and forces on underlying floors will only increase.
I heard the towers were build to withstand a plane crashing in, but I think they were more concerned with (part of) the towers not flipping over in such a case.
You do not exist. Go away.
I don't recall if it is supposed ot be NOVA or Frontline, and will have to wait a few days for the promo to show up on the websites. The are still in the march schedul
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Pity that:
- The WTC was a public building only "sold" a few months prior to the attack. It was built and owned by the Port Authority of NY & NJ.
- There are likely no other buildings in the world (possibly excepting the Great Pyramid) that could have held up as well/as long to the assault as the WTC did.
So 2 for 2 you were wrong; now please crawl back to your dark corner.I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
One of the contributing factors is the lack of Asbestos fireproofing above the 70th floors. New EPA laws were enacted during the construction of WTC that prohibited the spray-on fireproofing that was applied to the I-beams. With the fireproofing, the I-beams could withstand an esimated 2000 degree fire, and without they would lose temper and bend at approx. 1200 degrees.
The jet fuel burned at an excess of 2000 degrees,
so it's likely the towers still would have collapsed, but some extra time would have allowed further evacuation efforts.
Burning kerosine swims on water. No sprinkler system would have put out that fire. Halon would have been needed, but this surely would have been too expensive for the whole building to be equipped with. Nevertheless it surely would have delayed the colapse for a certain time if the sprinklers had worked and cooled the fire.
The report seems not to say anything about the fact that the WTC was a steel construction and thus rather unprotected against fire as opposed to ferroconcrete which is safer but would have needed the buildings to be smaller. This is the cause why there are not similar high buildings in Europe where regulations demand ferroconcrete.
Didnt the article say that there was spray on fireproofing on the steel columns?
The Moo went "Cow!"
Perhaps you could take your anti-capitalist rhetoric elsewhere, comrade. If you had any decency, you'd know that in the time period the towers were designed and constructed in they were paragons of efficiency and safety. Far from cutting all costs and maintenance, the towers were meticulously designed to withstand all manner of natural forces, fires, and other disasters. They were even designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 jetliner, the largest then available. Alas, a 767 is much larger and carries more fuel. Even then, the towers would have stood had it not been for the fire, and the impact and explosion were far more than any designer could've ever dreamed would happen.
My friend, you appear to have a huge chip on your shoulder that is clouding your judgement. People died because madmen hijacked two jetliners and deliberately slammed them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent human beings. Corporate greed and stockholders had nothing to do with it, and it is callous, irresponsible, and shallow of you to even suggest such a thing to further your obvious hatred of corporate America.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
In the future, we'll just have to build all really tall buildings underwater. Maybe Kevin Costner could offer up some good advice.
Tell that to Steve McQueen...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
the lawsuits fly!
while you make pretty speeches...i'm being cut to shreds. you throw me to the lions...a delicate balance.
He stated that the airplanes could have not brought them down seeing that buildings of a lesser, equal, or greater size get the same sort of impact daily with the force of winds.
Well, this may be true, but when you consider that the airplanes *did* down the two buildings, one must realise that there is something flawed about that statement. I would accept that most skyscrapers are pummeled with the strength of an airplane crash daily, except that the force is spread across the entire structure, or at least one entire face, of the building. Consider what it might feel like if you were walking down the street and suddenly the entire energy of the ~50mph wind gusts that you normally can easily withstand were channeled at a 1cm^2 section of your chest, or even your skull. Wouldn't that at least completely knock the wind out of you? I haven't the time to properly do the math myself right now, but it may work out that such an energy release over such a small space would be enough force to pierce skin and possibly break bones.
And that is what made the difference, aside from the fire and explosions that are discussed elsewhere in the thread.
Problem is though, all that force was concentrated into a very tight area, only a few floors, thus putting the building under great stress. Plus the floors were ripped apart by the impact, a thing that would not happen with wind.
They ran an hour long program where they interviewed two key people ... the mechanical engineer who built the towers and a forensic mechanical engineer who was looking at the wreckage.
Each had unique viewpoints. The designing mechanical engineer is haunted to the core over this. Most of his sentances trailed off as he was reliving what happened.
The forensic scientist identified the fact that the fireproofing material was blown off from the original impact. This hastened the collapse. He also commented that the support structures for the floors were the first things to fail.
My question is did anyone really think they were going to fall? Remembering back to the day no one in the media raised the question. None of my friends or family I was talking to that day even thought of it as a remote possibility.
This raises a very interesting question about our expectations vs. reality. After the shuttle disaster I think this stands as one of the most shocking slaps in the face to us concerning technology.
Of course the buildings weren't going to survive, but our faith in technology made us think that day that the buildings collapsing wasn't a possibility.
Think for a few moments before posting.
- These buildings received Certificates of Occupancy, had been tested in the prior attack, their systems and procedures were as good as any other in the world.
- There is NO evidence of cost-cutting, sub-standard materials or equipment, etc. This was a public building owned until recently by the Port Authority of NY & NJ and by all reports kept in exemplary condition.
- These were not slip-shod towers built overnight in some 3rd-world country without reviews, standards, or regular inspections.
- Aside from their unusual tube-design (which appears to have been their greatest asset) and height there is nothing special about WTC towers that would separate them from tall buildings around the world. This includes materials.
Finally, before you post realize that 3,000 humans died horribly in this disaster. Perhaps before you post your Monday-morning-quarterbacking, rumor-spreading & conspiracy theories you might show a bit of respect for those folks and the ones they left behind.A little courtesy and respect is appreciated.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Fizban, why do you subscribe to this hated view of things? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever than anyone is profiting from this disaster, unless you count the heartless scumbags that are claiming to have lost family in the Towers but in fact did not. What perks and bonuses are you talking about? You have no idea, do you? Nobody is making money off this incident, save perhaps the lawyers who will sue anyone and everyone in sight. To blame those with "millions in the bank" shows that you haven't given the matter much thought.
If you're looking for blame, heartlessness, greed, and a lack of pity or remorse, you have to look no further than a man in a camouflage jacket with an AK-47, running around somewhere in the hills of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq. He's the one who's happy about this.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
For that reason entirely, the towers actually did have water tanks up on the 100th floor for putting out fires. Witnesses describe water rushing down the stairways. So in some way, they were prepared for this sort of thing
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
I think it's worthwhile to point out that even if corporate America had nothing to do with the buildings being unable to withstand the impact Corporate greed and stockholders still had something to do with it. It was infact the madmen's hatred of corporate America and execs with millions in the bank and still try to get more money out of starving nations while they starved that likely drove them mad and inspired them to do what they did.
I stole this Sig
Didn't stop Cameron making up details (and lots of them) for "Titanic"; how long does something have to be in the past before no one cares I wonder. Probably a question Yassir Arafat is asking himself about now...
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I say this,yet I also work in finance on Wall St.
Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
1) It's been stated that the planes were flying above maximum speeds. The first plane was going at 350 MPH, and the second at 400 MPH. I highly doubt that buildings anywhere get hit daily by 350 MPH winds. (The strongest hurricane is about 150 MPH, I doubt a cyclone or twister is much higher than that)
2) It wasn't just the airplanes IMPACT that brought down the WTC. Read the article. Granted, there was plenty of structural damage done to the buildings from the impact (so much so that I think they would have closed the buildings while a stability assessment could be done.) But, as the article says, 2000F fires can easily melt steel supports in the floor and the central and external cores. That is the major contributor to the collapse.
how long does something have to be in the past before no one cares I wonder
It's 22.5 years. That's how long it took for AIDS to be funny.
And if you haven't seen the South Park episode, DON'T MOD!!!
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Apparently this type of construction is despised by firefighters because when they're inside a building during a fire the floors are likely to collapse at any moment.
Another famous New York Landmark also suffered an airplane collision. Now granted the airplane that hit the side of the Empire State Building was not the same size as the two that hit the World Trade Center, the B25 did quite a bit of structural damage. Enough damage in fact, that if simply the collision caused the Trade Center collapse, then the Empire STate (the plane did hit somewhere between the 78th and 79th floors)building should have also collapsed. In actuality the reason that the Trade Center collapsed and the Empire State building did not, is one of metallurgy. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel that were burning in the Trade Centers got hot enough to anneal the structural steel. When that happened the sheer mass of the floors above the impact zone collapsed triggering the chain reaction. Had the Jets that hit the Trade centers been nearly empty of fuel (ie. getting ready to land, instead of just taking off) the buildings would have survived the impact.
The following excerpt is from "Empire: A Tale of Obsession, Betrayal, and the Battle for an American Icon", copyright © 2001, available from John Wiley & Sons. It describes the impact of the B25 that hit the Empire State Building in 1945.
"Army Lieutenant Colonel William Smith Jr., a 27-year-old veteran of 34 bombing missions over Germany, had been flying a twin-engine B-25 bomber from Bedford, Massachusetts, to New York's LaGuardia Airport, and had secured permission to continue to Newark, New Jersey.
The fog was blinding. When he dropped down out of the clouds, he found himself approaching a forest of skyscrapers. In a panic, he banked away from the Grand Central Building, then from another tower on Fifth Avenue, only to find himself bearing down on the biggest one of all.
In desperation, he pulled up hard, twisting. The 10-ton (9-tonne) bomber plowed into the office of War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference on the 78th and 79th floors, 913 feet (278 meters) off the street, tearing a gaping hole in the Empire State Building's north side."
The full article describing the impact in 1945 can be found here: Empire State Building Collision.
The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of its time, a Boeing 707. A 757/767 isn't much more massive than a 707, but obviously the real problem is the tremendous amount of fuel that a cross-country flight carries.
In fact, it probably wouldn't have mattered what fire suppression system the building used...jet fuel is basically kerosene and it is much lighter than water. You can't effectively extinguish a kerosene fire with water. That's why you see aviation firefighers using something called aqueous film-forming foam. It floats on the kerosene.
Maybe to the layman the fact that the buildings survived the impact was amazing, but in fact it was simply a matter of good, purposeful design. Unfortunately, it's asking an awful lot to expect structural steel to survive the kind of intense temperature that is generated by an aviation fuel fire, particularly when the fuel supply is effectively limitless.
-h-
Calling the WTC's collapse an engineering failure is kind of like taking C4 to slashdot's servers and saying that the code failed somehow. You just can't reasonably have expected them to anticipate this. Expecting a building of similar requirements (e.g., height, usable space, windows, etc) to withstand both the impact of a modern airliner and the jet fuel may well be an impossible task, especially when trying to do it within any reasonable budget. Please think about what you are saying and try to be a little less arrogant. Thank You
How's this. You know that a 5 inch magnifing glass can easily burn you in the sun.
Imagine a magnifier that had the same surface area as your exposed skin, focusing that energy on you, it would quickly burn you to the bone.
A more easily quantifiable analogy for your argument.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The Twin Towers had large emergency water tanks as high as the 110th floor. But they were damaged in the explosion, and water dumped uselessly down the stairwells and elevator shafts. Even if the firefighters had reached the fire floor, they wouldn't have had water. We're probably going to see more redundancy required in high-rise standpipe systems because of this. Extra pipes and one-way check valves are needed, but that's not a big deal.
It's not impossible to put out a fire that big with water, if you start early. Aircraft hangars and aircraft carriers have deluge systems that can do the job. We may see systems like that required in skyscrapers. A big problem is making sure they don't go off because of a smoky wastebasket or something.
I posted an article a few days after the event based upon some research on the net that stated whoever designed this attack did it in such a way that it was virutally assured of working. This takes a great deal of engineering knowledge and planning. Only a fire caused by jetfuel in the quantities from a large airliner could burn hot enough to melt the superstructure of the building and cause it to collapse.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
(The strongest hurricane is about 150 MPH, I doubt a cyclone or twister is much higher than that)
The fastest winds recorded in tornadoes are in the 300 mph range, not too much slower than the first plane.
Then why WAS the fire suppression system disabled? Surely it's more cost effective to not pay for a working system provided the structure doesn't collapse in a big huge fire... and what are the odds of that happening, really? Even if there WAS a big huge fire that somehow brought down the towers (yeah right) it's all covered by insurance, right?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
16 days after Sept 11th, I received this in an email from my father, (who happens to be a Mechanical Engineer):
- Professor Thomas Mackin, who currently teaches Failure Mechanisms in Engineering Materials class, made this short presentation (attached) after the World Trade Tower tragedy. This presentation was made in response to the
Chancellor's request for teachers to discuss with their classes the recent events. Mackin was clearly as shaken up about the events as were the rest of us. He only had a short response to his final question: "As engineers, what can we do to prevent this from happening. - Nothing."
There was simply too much energy put into the buildings. bin Laden knew that, the engineers know that... it's a damn shame we're back to the accusations, finger-pointing, and blame-placing that so much plagues our culture.Attached was a .PDF file, "ME 346 - Engineering Analysis of Tragedy at WTC."
The engineers did their job. They did it well. World Trade Center 1 & 2 were good buildings -- I stood on top of one just over 10 years ago. I can hardly believe I never will again.
Osama bin Laden and his cronies are the ones -- the ONLY ones -- responsible for this outrage. Please, let's try to remember that.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Ever heard the saying "two wrongs do not make a right?"
Yes, corporate greed does a lot of harm to the world.
There is, however, no excuse for terrorism against innocent people. These gutless bastards and the organizations that backed them haven't even had the courage to own up to their actions or give a reason for them.
The things that corporations do to harm people, in this country and others, should be brought to light and should be stopped. But this is not the way to do it. If anything, the WTC attacks have just solidified the position of people like George W. Bush who make possible some of the horrors that are visited upon "starving nations." Not only have thousands of innocent people been murdered, but it's not considered impolitic to disagree with the current administration. These attacks have convinced millions of people that the only way to prevent further attacks is to give free reign to conservative assholes like Bush and Ashcroft.
These events were "inspired" by people just as evil as the corporations who indoctrinate children with the idea that it's glorious to kill people for "jihad." They're just as power-hungry and evil, even more so if you asked me.
Most of the terrorists were traced back to Saudi Arabia. If people are starving in Saudi Arabia, they can look to their own government for that -- they bring in enough oil money to feed ever man, woman and child in the country. These were people who were trained to hate by people like bin Laden -- someone who's probably never gone hungry a day in his life. At least not prior to his terrorist days. It was more inspired by misguided religious beliefs than anything.
Again, corporate greed does plenty of harm, but by having to trot it out in every discussion you dilute the argument and convince people that you're a fanatic. Corporate greed isn't responsible for all the world's ills any more than Islamic terrorists are. They both visit their own horrors upon people, but place blame where it belongs.
i worked at 5 WTC until september 11th, and have been mentally grasping with the idea: rebuild? or not?
seriously, what do slashdotters think? I can think of a few pros and cons:
con:
-survivors families want a memorial park.
-who would work in a new building?
-would structural constraints make it impossible economically/ physically?
pro:
-it is downtown manhattan after all, one of the engines of the world economy.
-this fema analysis seems to suggest just making some improvements in the firecode is all that is needed to ensure future safety.
-it was a failure of intelligence that caused september 11th primarily (the phillipines warned us about arab terrorists training to crash planes into buildings 7 years before september 11th, for one). i mean seriously, is another september 11th even possible in today's climate? what group of airplane passengers would stay in their seats for a repeat occurence? september 11th seems like a one-time deal to me.
seriously, to rebuild or not seems a pretty tough decision. what does everyone think?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My friend, you appear to have a huge chip on your shoulder that is clouding your judgement. People died because madmen hijacked two jetliners and deliberately slammed them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent human beings. Corporate greed and stockholders had nothing to do with it, and it is callous, irresponsible, and shallow of you to even suggest such a thing to further your obvious hatred of corporate America.
1. Corporate America was the reason for these dubiously large towers' existence in the first place as well as the only entity who at the time could have funded their construction; as one would expect, the vast majority of the dead workers were direct participants in Corporate America.
2. The reasoning behind the terrorists activity is a hatred of the spread of economic colonialism and Corporate America at the expense of what Corporate America labels "more primitive" traditional or religious lifestyles.
3. Cutthroat competitiveness in the airline industry (i.e. Corporate America) is the reason for the lax security which allowed hijackers to board the planes which hit the buildings. The consumer demanded faster security, takeoffs, and landings at airports and the consumer got them. Market demand, my friend.
4. Corporate America has lobbied the government and the INS heavily over the past decade to loosen immigration restrictions and slow-downs, especially from the east, from which many tech workers have come. Apparently, some of them were terrorists.
Anti-capitalist is not an insult. At least I don't take it as one.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder as well.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Capitalism is not what keeps 3rd world countries poor. In fact, capitalism is their sole potential for escape. What is keeping them down are labor unions and Greens, who insist on labor and environmental controls in countries that can afford neither at such an early stage of industrialization.
[ home ]
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Anonymous Cowards filtered. If their words aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should I value them any more?
In this case I agree, often Anonymous Coward post can be interesting, but this was without any value.
Tom Clancy beat you to that one.
I think it was "Executive Orders"
- Crazy lunatic terrorist crashes 747 into joint session of Congress which the president is addressing
- Hero Jack Ryan (appointed VP for some reason, I forget...) is the most senior to survive, becomes President
- Jack Ryan 'strongly encourages' voters to elect non-politicians to refill the House of Representatives and the Senate (Woo Hoo!!!)
Sound familiar?"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
you're obviously spending too much time smoking the ganja, my friend. "in relative retrospect?" "influx into the education of freedom fighters?" I can't even understand what you're saying, dude. It's OK... just take another toke, everything will be all right, don't freak out...
The US deserves every bit of what it got in the WTC. And there are hundreds of thousands of "madmen" and "madwomen" who would say the same thing.
I just don't know how to mod this... If you're deliberately trying to be an idiot, then you deserve the worst.
If by "The Church of Globalisation" you mean a diverse workplace where hundreds of different nationalities worked in the same building, then yeah I guess you are right.
Unless you're implying there was some global, evil force controlling all the business in the WTC... I just don't understand.
Are corporations automatically evil? Maybe you're saying they deserved it? Please clarify.
Which is completely irrelevant in conjunction with the towers, seeing as they don't get beaten daily by uber-tornadoes.
It is said that the airplanes caused an impact of equal or lesser force than what it would experience from day-to-day wind.
Keep in mind that when calculations are done to measure the force of wind on a building, it is measured as the wind force distributed against the ENTIRE surface of the building.
The airplanes caused an equivalent force to a much smaller area on the side of the building. Thus, this smaller area experienced an impulse far greater than it would normally feel from wind. Compare apples to apples, people. Please.
Common sense: If in fact you really think that wind force did equal plane force on the WTC's over the same area, then tell me this: how come those windows aren't caving in and a huge hole ripped due to wind? They did cave in under force of the plane.
Even assuming that a cost-effective delivery system for Halon-type fire suppression systems could have been installed into the towers, you'd have ended up with two unstable towers with giant holes in them and heavy airplane wreckage, as well as many floors' worth of people who'd have died of suffocation from the Halon.
Now consider that as soon as you install a large-scale fire suppression, it becomes a potential terrorist target, itself. Imagine what could happen if you worked in an office and then suddenly, without warning, the system activated without there being a fire or other indicator of danger? Would you know what was happening in time to get out before succumbing to it? Would there be enough emergency portable air masks for you and all your colleagues and guests and maintainance personnel and people in the elevators, and would they be properly trained in how to use them?
And assuming you could answer "yes" to all of the above, or find some way of working around the issues, why wouldn't the terrorists just destroy some other buildings, or blow up the subways, etc?
The answer isn't to build a lot of systems to make sure people are safe - you can never build enough to protect against every possibility. The answer is to prevent where possible the actions to which we can't adequately react. This means going after terrorist training facilities and organizations, but it also means we should look at what we are doing that causes marginally-rational people to contemplate overly-extreme responses such as this.
Get off my launchpad!
...the report more or less concludes that the buildings collapsed because of the way they were designed, but withstood the damage for as long as they did before collapsing because of the way they were designed. Talk about, "Damned if you do, damned it you don't."
The worst-case disaster scenario for those towers was a 707 accidentally blundering into one, not a bunch of crazy religious-zealot, martyr-wannabe motherfuckers purposely plowing a much larger, fully-fueled aircraft into it at full speed.
If anyone who lost someone in the collapse even thinks of trying to sue anyone involved in the design or construction of the twin towers, they ought to be drawn and quartered. Sure, they could build a building that could stand up to worse than the WTC got, but proofing it against everything would cost a mint and leave a few phone booths' worth of usable space per floor. Don't forget that there wouldn't be any windows. The rent would be so expensive that nobody would be able to afford to put an office in it.
IMHO, when you step back and look at the big picture, you simply cannot fault the design of the buildings for the fact that they catastrophically failed in the face of an unprecedented, unimagined, deliberate action that was well beyond the scope of their design.
~Philly
These events were "inspired" by people just as evil as the corporations who indoctrinate children with the idea that it's glorious to kill people for "jihad."
Yeah it's just a typo but I'll point it out here so someone else doesn't start flaming.
Now to the point in hand. I see your point and agree with it to a certain extent. I wasn't saying that their actions were justified I was merely pointing out how it can be seen how they were driven to such extremes. I suspect the fact that most of the terrorists come from Saudi Arabia is due to the fact they are the ones who have the funding to carry out the activities, from what I know there is a much stronger sense of nationalism(can't think of a better term) between Arab nations than others in the world. Evil and powerhungry people exist everywhere but it's my belief that forgien policy decisions by the US (i.e. backing Israel and basing most forgien policy decisions on how to maximize American profits regardless of the affected countries) are what gave these terrorists the neccessary popular support to justify terrorist attacks against the US. Also regardless of who caused it I'm sure you can't argue that there wasn't wide-spread famine in Afgahnistan, you can be sure that they wouldn't feel kindly to the weight loss industry in the US for example. Whether the US's forgeign actions (both corporate and government) are right is not the whole point, it is that those actions are what gave these terrorists an excuse to attack and they will continue to do so unless changes are made. It might be necessary for the US to start leading by example and spreading the wealth because they can't expect the rest of the world to suddenly forget the predjudices they have against the US. On an interesting side note for a while now the US's police action or whatever they are calling it in Afghanistan has now claimed more civilian lives than Sept. 11, although I don't know if those numbers include the non-soldiers from Al-Queda.
I stole this Sig
Asbestos is really toxic. Yes. So we stopped using asbestos when we came up with a substitute. Fiberglass. Except fiberglass is already classified as a carcinogen in California, but no substitute yet, so no ban. Facts are facts. Raise the CAFE MPG requirements, cars will get lighter, more people will die. Tree huggers say improved safety technology in cars offset lighter cars, but fact is improved safety technology in a heavier car is safer.
Fact is had more asbestos been used in WTC, towers would have taken longer to collapse, more people would have gotten out. Asbestos was used extensively for fireproofing, but not for duration of construction due to EPA/tree huggers. Also, when the scares on asbestos first started in the 70's/80's, and corporations said get it all out (now they manage it in place and only remove when area is going to be disturbed), a contractor was hired to remove large amounts of spray on asbestos in the WTC. Most asbestos abatement contractors also are in the fireproofing business, same industry, one puts it on, one takes it off. When a company performs asbestos abatement in NYS, by law, the fireproofing/insulation must be replaced. If the abatement contractor also reinsulates, they bid the reinsulation, or they sub it. Or in some cases a reinsulation company is brought in separately. But it must be done at the conclusion of the abatement. So the contract did not specify that the NEW spray on insulation must be asbestos free. Since the abatement contractor was in the spray on insulation business, and they had just banned the MANUFACTURE of asbestos in the US, guess what type of spray on insulation the contractor had in his establishment? And guess what he sprayed back on after he removed the old asbestos? You got it. Asbestos. They couldn't do anything to him, as the contract did not specify asbestos free for the replacement. But they learned there lesson. Since then, and up until last year, there has been continued asbestos removal.
Asbestos was in not just spray on insulation, but also plaster, floor tile, gypsum wallboard, joint compound, mastic (glue), caulking, drop ceiling panels, paint, and hundreds of other building materials. Anytime any renovation went on in the WTC, either testing was done, or previous test results were used to identify asbestos containing material (ACM), and asbestos abatement workers were used, under a long term contract, to remove the asbestos. Tons and tons of asbestos were removed over a period that continued up till last year.
But if more spray on asbestos had been used, and more had not been removed, the steel would not have lost its strength as fast, giving everyone more time to get out. Asbestos has a melting point far in excess of 1000 degrees. Substitutes for asbestos have lower melting points. Therefore, the fire rating for buildings with asbestos is higher than for buildings without asbestos. Period.
The terrorists killed my friend Mike, fireman, my friend's wife, my aunt's maid of honor, some moving men from my old union local Teamsters 814, and they almost got my cousin, but he made it out. Asbestos may kill my uncle, who has asbestosis, and may shorten my life later on, but it possibly would have saved my friends, had they more time to get out.
.
Hmmm ... I didn't know that asbestos came from trees. The things you learn on slashdot ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
There are a lot of issues here, but I want to address a few of them.
1. "Spreading the Wealth."
We've already seen many examples of trying to aid foreign countries, and that aid being appropriated by military forces in the country. So, it's often worthless to try to help a country without sending troops to "stabalize" the region and be sure that food, medicine and so forth go where they're intended. Military interventionism is one of the things that the US is always being beat up about -- in other words, we can't win for losing here. If we help, someone hates us. If we don't, someone hates us. Simply put, there is no way to do the right thing by everyone no matter how good our intentions are. Do nothing, we're wrong. Do something, we're wrong.
2. Afghanistan would be insulted by our weight loss industry.
There's a number of things about our culture that offend other countries. The idea that not wanting to eat (bulimia, anorexia) is a disease would probably disgust them as well... again, I really think that the WTC attack was as much a religious and cultural issue as it was a protest of any foreign policy -- that's just an excuse. I think that the old-guard in the Taliban and other Islamic terrorist organizations are just itching to try to wipe out cultures that don't agree with them. It's really hard to convince your wife or daughter that she's inferior and shouldn't read, write or be uncovered in public when you have women like Madeline Allbright as Secretary of State for the most powerful country in the world.
3. Our foreign policies as an excuse to attack us. Changes must be made.
No doubt, bin Laden has drummed up support by playing up our support for Israel. Again, however, if we weren't involved with Israel but just fail to help Palestine, they'd find fault. We're a target not so much because of our policies, but because we're the biggest guy on the block. If you're top dog, there's always someone who wants to knock you down. That's not to say our foreign policy isn't faulty, but the fact remains that there is no way we'll be able to walk the tightrope well enough to keep from pissing someone off. If we change foreign policy to please people like bin Laden, we'll not only be seen as a "Great Satan" by someone -- we'll also be seen as weak. Also, the things that we're hated for abroad, you can be sure that our every fault is exaggerated in what passes for the Middle Eastern press. Truth in reporting isn't a big concern for people with terrorist ties.
4. Our actions have claimed more lives than the attack itself.
Maybe. By whose count? Also, the point wasn't to kill an equal number of people -- we'd have been happy if the Afghanistan government or people would have just turned bin Laden over to us with no bloodshed whatsoever. They refused. Now they're paying the price. Not to sound callous, but it could have been prevented. I, for one, doubt that the present administration is all that anxious to find bin Laden -- they want to drag this out as long as possible to keep attention away from all the nasty things that Bush administration is trying to do. Yes, I'm a cynical bastard, and yes, I think that Bush and his cronies are evil.
I think the bottom line is this, as a country the people of the US need to pay more attention to what we're doing in (and to) foreign countries. We should not be intimidated into ceasing to try to help other countries, but our "leaders" need to take a longer view of things. We often get fired up about a cause, jump in and then get bored and leave a big-ass mess behind. That's a gross oversimplification, but it pretty much holds true. Our foreign policy changes almost daily, and we're not very good at predicting what the outcome of our actions is going to be down the road. Of course this leads to trouble.
Just spreading the wealth isn't really possible. Pouring money into another country really doesn't work. Anything more involved is seen as heavy-handed. I wish there was an easy answer for this, but there's not.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever than anyone is profiting from this disaster...
Oh I could think of a few arms manufacturers and a few oil companies who stand to cash in big time.
As far as Osama being behind this, I say to you: Show me the proof! Proof is not some fuzzy videotape conveniently "found" a couple of months after the fact.
You're using her as bait, Master!
" So all you people saying that the jet fuel caused the collapse because it was impossible to put out and burned at a very high temperature are wrong, according to this report. "
Speaking of reading.
(starting with title.)
"Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says "
"Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled in the twin towers..." "... blaze so intense that it drove temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees and generated heat equivalent to the energy output of a nuclear power plant..."
Note the amount of energy and how that changes the emphasis on what the final answer could be.
"But the buildings were able to redistribute loads away from damaged columns so well that they could probably have remained standing indefinitely if not for the fires, an earthquake or a windstorm, the report said. **Team members are still debating the delicate question of whether the tremendous fires could have brought the towers down on their own.**[emphasis mine]"
So they're neither right nor wrong. the question is still open to debate. But just going with the report.
"The fire, combined with these failures, brought down the towers..."
"Like a giant well of lighter fluid, though, the remaining fuel burned within minutes, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo over multiple floors and igniting the catastrophic inferno that brought the towers down."
Remaining WHAT in conjunction with WHAT did WHAT?
Of course, you could design a server to withstand a pound of C4, just like you could design a skyscraper to withstand a 757 fully loaded with fuel.
It's just terribly expensive.
And next time it will be a lawfully purchased surplus 747 on an approved flight path that crashes into a nuclear power plant somewhere.
Come to think of it, with a large cargo plane, it would be easy to make it into a shaped charge (think RPG-7 warhead). It would be more expensive to buy the plane, but the proof of concept necessary for the investors has now been done.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Given that the towers /were/ going to collapse,
thanks to two teams of mass-murderers who flew
767s into them at 300 mph and set off a 10,000
gallons jet-fuel firestorm,
We should at least be glad they pancaked down
into their own basements, instead of collapsing
sideways. Had they done so, it might have wiped
out much of Manhattan and perhaps killed 30,000
people instead of 3,000.
Perhaps any new 100+ story buildings built in a
densely populated area /should/ be designed the
same way as the WTC, to collapse inward if the
unthinkable happens and the building cannot be
saved.
(Obviously, if humanly possible buildings should
be designed to stay up long enough to evacuate
everyone; and the WTC did hold up until 90% of
the people got out).
Just an opposing view, to those who say the WTC
should have been designed differently. I doubt
any other designed would have produced as few
casualties after such a horrific attack.
>:K
>;k
Say....god forbid....a small country secures themselves enough weapons grade plutonium to build a nuclear device and detonates it in a city. Should all city buildings be nuclear-proofed? Should all buildings for that matter?
What I think some people fail to understand is that some events...despite any amount of planning, can not be prevented.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Debt of Honor.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Please stay where you are. Armed personnel are on their way to apprehend you right now for inciting acts of terrorism under the PATRIOT act. Thank you very much.
-- John Ashcroft
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
If it weren't for the fact that my car got hit in the back and the back tire was twisted I'd still be able to drive it. Or.. if it weren't for the fact that a cracker got into my computer systema nd fdisked the drive I'd still have a server running.... or.. If it weren't for the fact that the boat sprung a leak it would still be floating (give me a break!!!!)
The towers were designed to withstand a 747 hitting them, and a 747 would have been larger then then the 767 and 757 that actualy hit. So, it was obviously a failure.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Then why WAS the fire suppression system disabled?
Uh, maybe because a 767 cut through the pipes, disabling them?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Ah. Thank you.
Appears my aging memory combined events in "Debt of Honor" and "Executive Orders". Crash happens at the end of the first book, political maneuvering happens in the second.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
and for the impovershment that keeps 3rd world countries poor so that they will be cheap sources of labor, exploited by capitalism, local governments and terrorist organizations.
/. that have yet to "see the light", but here I go again.
Exploited, eh? Good old evil exploitation by those awful bloody Yanks. It's a popular cry these days, and I don't know why I bother to even try to dissuade the poor souls here on
Pray tell, sir, if these greedy, pitiless capitalists weren't "exploiting" the third world, how would they be better off than they are now? As you noted, many of these countries have wealth and resources that could easily enrich them (India comes to mind) but instead vast swaths of their populations are near enslavement to their own government, their own kind!!! Capitalism is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight better than Socialism, Communism, Anarchy, or Despotism.
After all, look at the U.S. If people would put rhetoric aside and quite carping about how evil the U.S. is, folks would see that although Capitalism has involved suffering, it has also created the highest standard of living that this globe has ever seen. Advancements in medicine, computers, crop growing, space travel -- most if not all of these have been lead by the U.S. or U.S.-based "evil" corporations. Like it or not, the "greed" that so many people demonize also drives capitalists to constantly strive and fight to be on top. It's social and economic Darwinism, and although it's callous towards some (Enron comes to mind), you cannot deny that it has its advantages as well.
Socialism and Communism have advantages as well but thus far no country has been able to prove them very well. I don't think either will ever really work, simply because of human nature. Where Socialism and Communism describe a "worker's paradise" or "classless society", in reality society will always stratify between the "have's" and the "have not's" simply because (deep breath here folks) not all people are created equally. Blasphemy?
I don't think so. Why? Well, I'm a damn good I.T. professional. I'm good at it, if I say so myself. I would make a hideous violinist, or a terrible chemist, so clearly I'm better suited to excel in some areas and not others. Many have talents that are misused or ignored, either by choice or by societal pressures, but by and large many people find their "calling" one way or another. Others are too damned lazy, or don't want the responsibility that is required to make serious money. Ever look at your trash collector? Does he strike you as an ambitious chap? Didn't think so. He made his niche and he's living in it. He's not "less fortunate", he's made his choice and no matter how much he may bitch and moan about the "rick folks", he's where he is because he lacks the ambition or drive to move himself on up. I firmly believe this, because I've seen far too many "disadvantaged" people work their way up from far more difficult circumstances. If they can do it, anyone can do it.
There, I've said my piece. No doubt many will bash me, Troll me, and what else. Go ahead. Just remember that those who choose not to debate their ideas and principles usually do so because they are afraid the underpinnings of their beliefs will not withstand criticism. I am not afraid.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Ok, so it wasn't cheap-ass executives in NYC real estate, it was cheap-ass executives in Airline risk management who decided that it was more cost effective not to build sturdier crew cabin doors or buy tighter security, or to let hijackers take a plane rather than fight back. What exactly is your point?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You are correct, the character was a Japanese fellow who felt he'd been dishonored. That doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, and I'd argue he certainly qualified for the "lunatic" adjective. Even considering the choice of a 747 as a weapon, he stole a fueled, but otherwise empty, one. No hijacking, no passengers, no coordinated acts, etc. Prescient as Mr. Clancy was, he didn't go THAT far.
- "...it hacks me off that people out there really do believe money replaces a life and are willing to sue airlines/governments/anyone who might vaguely be responsible for letting this happen."
DAMN skippy. 'Nuff said.As far as Tom Clancy's reaction to Sept. 11th...
- "First we crippled the CIA. Then we blamed it."
I would like to know his thoughts about writing something, then (very nearly) witnessing it. It's probably out there somewhere -- I just haven't looked hard enough to find it."...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Your first three points have good merit and I agree with them for the most part (there's a lot of agruments either way). However I disagree on the final point. I want you to think about this statement, " we'd have been happy if the Afghanistan government or people would have just turned bin Laden over to us with no bloodshed whatsoever." Why should they have turned over Bin Laden, think about it from their point of view. A massive terrorist attack is committed against the most powerful nation in the worl, a nation that much of your country also despises as the "Great Satan". Now on circumstancial evidence this nation now demands you turn over what is almost a national hero, a terrorist albeit, but a very popular figure. The US had basically convicted Bin Laden within days of the attack (innocent until proven guilty out the window), from the Taliban's point of view regardless of your personal relationship with him or your involvement with the attack you cannot turn over Bin Laden. To do so would not only be an admittal of guilt when you see no evidence but also a huge sign of weakness. The US essentially invaded a country and destroyed a government on a hunch.
On an interesting note I wonder what would of happened if some of the terrorists involved were found in Canada. You can be sure that the US would want the death penalty and we have a law that does not allow us to hand over a prisoner to a country where they could face the death penalty (maybe we could give him over on a lesser charge like they did on Law and Order:).
As to the fact of the US's policy of massive interventionism I believe this comes from the first two world wars. I've basically heard it stated that the US was late for the first two world wars so decided to be early for every other one.
Still on that note it's interesting to note some of the similarities between recent events and the assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinand (heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne) was assasinated in Serbia by a Serbian which was the spark that set off WWI.
boy these debates are fun! anyone else want in on the action just hit reply!
I stole this Sig
I thought at the time that it would be probably prudent to have parachutes in tall buildings.
That surly, authority challenged twenty-something that likes to jump off of buildings, bridges, etc, would have counted his blessings as he hurled himself out a window complete with parachute. Makes you think, eh?
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
sorry I must have forgotten to close the bold tag(I wish the lameness filter had caught that)
I stole this Sig
You need foam, not water, to effectively put out burning jet fuel.
There's a difference between putting the fire out, and keeping it from damaging the structure. I'm not aware of any solution that would bring a sprinker-like foam system to office buildings.
However, a flow of water droplets is major deterrant against both flash-over and heat damage. In the wake of the Piper Alpha disaster (an off-shore oil rig that burned out of control), British Gas did some life-sized experiments with sprinkler and found that starting the sprinkler as early as possible slows down the fire, as well as cooling it (which prevents flash-over).
Classic sprinklers just dump a lot of water. Modern sprinklers saturate the air with tiny water droplets. The modern ones are very effective.
In the wake of september eleven, I hope that sprinkler will get the attention it deserves. And that includes trying to figure out how to get enough water from smaller tanks on each floor, rather than from huge tanks with vulnerable pipes.
I'm not a fire safety engineer, so take my opinions with a grain of salt, but all footage I've seen of fire control with modern sprinkler at least convinced me.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
(see here and
here. )
It seems insurance companies will need to charge higher premiums for buildings that house CIA, US Secret Service, IRS and Securities & Exchange Commission files, now that they have a propensity for spontaneous collapse.
(see here and
here. )
Why should they have turned over Bin Laden
Self-preservation?
Yes, I realize that Afghanistan's national pride would have taken a hit if they had just handed him over -- but a lot of people would still be alive. The Taliban would likely still be in power. The outcome -- a prolonged military attack on Afghanistan -- was a foregone conclusion if they refused.
I also disagree that this was just "a hunch." For one thing, I believe that the administration still has evidence that they're not sharing with the public. Another is the fact that this isn't the first attack that bin Laden has orchestrated, merely the most successful. It's my understanding that there is very conclusive evidence that he has been responsible for previous terrorist attacks against the US.
What would have happened if bin Laden was in Canada? That's a good question. Surely, we would have been loathe to attack Canada, and they would be just as unlikely to turn him over knowing that we'd be likely to sentence him to death. (Actually, I'm not sure we would. Killing bin Laden makes him a martyr, particularly if it were a scheduled execution that the entire world could focus on rather than dying anonymously in some cave...) However, we're far more likely to allow Canada to try him in Canada because we know that Canada would actually give bin Laden a fair (fairer, anyway) trial than Afghanistan. (Or the US, for that matter...) Who really believes that the Taliban would have tried bin Laden, or found him guilty if they did? He was there for a reason, because the government and many of the people supported him. They backed the wrong horse.
Canada isn't really a good example, anyway. Say bin Laden was in a country that we were more neutral with, like the Czech Republic or Kenya. Would we attack them if they refused to hand him over? Would they have handed him over without a fight? That's a good question, I'd say we likely would have, eventually. But more likely, those countries would have handed him over.
Frankly, if I were the president when something like this happened, we would have been bombing Afghanistan within 48 hours if they refused to hand him over. It was a foregone conclusion anyway, giving them a long time to think it over was a mistake to wait so long as it was.
As for the policy of interventionism... that's probably part of it. The fear of communism is probably a bigger factor, but we've gotten in the habit and forgotten why we started. The Korean War, Vietnam, supporting the Taliban -- those were done in the name of blocking the spread of communism. (Which in many ways gets back to corporate greed, really...)
For many of us, South Park notwithstanding, still feel every day the loss of friends & lovers & family to that disease. Furthermore many of us watch yet more friends, family & lovers continue to fight for their lives, every day.
That many somehow believe that the epidemic is over or that they are somehow safe from it is only more disheartening and even more tragic.
So unless you've lost ones close to you to HIV, or to the events of September 11, 2001, please don't take it upon yourself try and tell the rest of us what we should find "funny" or not.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
What part of "the jet fuel did not directly cause the collapse of the towers" do you not understand? Is it the "directly" part? Let me clear this up for you: The fire caused the fall of the towers. The fire was started by jet fuel. But the jet fuel ran out just minutes after the crash. After that, the fire that was still burning heated up the structure and caused the collapse. The chain of events was like this: Fuel fire -> ordinary fire -> collapse. Note that the fuel did not directly cause the collapse. The ordinary fire did, which was my point. The fire that caused the collapse of the towers was an ordinary (although large) fire, which did not require abnormal fire-fighting chemicals and was not abnormally hot from the heat of jet-fuel combustion, as everyone seems to think.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
It is (more likely, was) official policy, possibly set out by the government, to give in to hijacker demands. This was based on the logic that allowing them to have their way was better than having them kill a few passengers. Of course, that was back when "their way" did not include the unthinkable.
In the History Channel's WTC documentary, they showed large backup generators whose purpose was to briefly power the entire complex in an outage. There were also large tanks of diesel fuel to supply the generators. I'd say it's likely that setup was in 7 WTC or one of the other ancillary buildings.
And now a quick Google search reveals this: Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
~Philly
I also disagree that this was just "a hunch." For one thing, I believe that the administration still has evidence that they're not sharing with the public. Another is the fact that this isn't the first attack that bin Laden has orchestrated, merely the most successful. It's my understanding that there is very conclusive evidence that he has been responsible for previous terrorist attacks against the US.
I totally agree. When I had access to some classified stuff, we would often know that, for example, the Tamil Tigers, were going to blow a Sri Lankan airliner two weeks before it happened. We just didn't know all the details. When it happens, as it is unfolding, though, you're pretty sure who's responsible and all. I have no doubt that the US intelligence machine knew something about this, just not enough to prevent it, and so enough evidence existed to arrest Bin Ladin and hold the trial later. That is all we're talking about, anyway.Put identity in the browser.
You said (emphasis mine):
The fact that the fire was large, along with the damage caused by the full-speed impact, meant that it was especially hot and especially hard to put out.
The distinction you're making in this and other posts between the "fuel-based" fire and the "ordinary fire" is a pointless one. It's like saying "guns don't kill people directly, bullets do", to which most people would reply "Well, yeah, but try killing people by throwing bullets at them! Bullets aren't very deadly without guns!".
Similarly, most people would say that the fuel was one of the major reasons that the fire was large (that and the force of impact and design of the building I guess), and its size made it very hot and hard to put out. Was the fuel "directly" to blame for the collapse of the towers? It depends how finely you slice it - one could argue that the "ordinary" fire wasn't the direct cause of the tower's collapse either, it was the falling of the initial floor that caused it all. Or maybe the floor after that... When does one floor collapsing become the tower falling? When does the damage done by the fuel-fire become damage done by the ordinary fire?
That many somehow believe that the epidemic is over or that they are somehow safe from it is only more disheartening and even more tragic.
Tell me how I'm not safe from it. I don't have HIV, neither does my girlfriend, (yes we're sure), and since we're both responsible, there aren't really many ways for us to be infected. (I should include that we've been dating exclusively since we were 15) Yes, I know that nobody is completely safe from anything, but it's hardly tragic that I am responsible for my own actions and my health reflects it.
So unless you've lost ones close to you to HIV, or to the events of September 11, 2001, please don't take it upon yourself try and tell the rest of us what we should find "funny" or not.
OK. Honestly, I don't find deadly viruses or the diseases they cause incredibly hilarious. I did, however, find the South Park episode that I was referencing hilarious.
People deal with things different ways.
Maybe it's my sick sense of humor, but nothing is really sacred to me. Make fun of whatever you want, whether it's affected someone close to me or not... Guess I'm just insensitive.
That's why I like South Park to begin with; they don't hold back at the request of people who might be easily offended by the subject matter.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
???? Damage done to the pentagon was nothing but icing on a cake. A close friend of mine went on a Pentagon tour some time ago. I can't exactly recall this, but he said the Pentagon is about 100(??) floors underground.
Ouch. What shit happens underground beats me...enter conspiracy theorists...
Perhaps, but then, we're dealing with two separate heads of the same beasts, aren't we?
Aren't the executives in the corporate world cut from the same cultural cloth as the executives (and legislators) in government?
Do they not go to the same select colleges, by and large?
Are they not bought with the political donations of industry?
Even if everyone in the system is not corrupt and actively tries to make good, intelligent decisions, beaurocracy ends up making them inefficient, dumb, and counterproductive. Throw in just a tiny bit of greed or even just self-interest and mistrust in the perceived opposition, and you end up with shitbrained regulations and broken government and industries that can't regulate themselves.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Well... Osama bin Laden is responsible, but so are the people (or entities) which provoked him and his cronies to do it.
I don't know why they did it -- nor does it really matter -- but they had to have a good reason (to them) to put in the high amount of time and effort.
Yes, and someone put *them* up to what they did, and someone put *them* up to that, and so on.
But that's doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda actually did it.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
I think that FEMA analysis is useful from a strategic standpoint, but not from placing blame. Last September, I listened to people ask why the building collapsed. Duh, cause the crazy Islamist kamikazi pilots flew two planes into them.
We've learned a lot about fire control and evacuation. The horrible stories of people that couldn't get out is horrible.
Granted, the "blame" isn't poor engineering, buy psychotic Islamists that decided to blow up lower Manhattan.
Hopefully when this situation is depoliticized, the FEMA report will help us in engineering future office buildings.
Alex
Ya know, first its anti-aircraft guns, then you'll suggest that our Air Force defend the nation's borders with regular patrols. Keep it up and you'll start advocating that we develop the ability to shoot down an incoming missile so Iraq isn't one nuclear warhead away from blackmailling us.
Crazy talk... We don't need a military, if we just gave the terrorists hugs and killed all the Jews in Israel, this would go away. Oh wait, never mind, THAT'S the insane plan.
I say this as a Jew that is 100% certain that the UN partition plan for Palestine was conceived of for a Jewish state with 0% chance of survival, figuring that the European Jews would go to Israel, get killed by the Arabs, and the Europeans wouldn't have to deal with my people again.
Oops, didn't work that out that way. Now deal with the fact that we still exist and stop supporting terrorists...
President Bush, any chance of having the Stealth Bombers hit Paris on the way to the region? A couple good hits there would teach them a few lessons...
Alex
And with my idea if anyone can implment it, then hell that's great and all the power to you. I lost one of my best friends at the WTC, they just recovered his body a few days ago. Anyway, the fire was the problem the building design itself from an architechtual standpoint was brilliant.
Therefore, to solve the problems with the fire we need a fuel that will either burn very very slow when NOT under pressure, or not burn at all unless it's under pressre, ala + 350-450psi.
Slam a jet into the building and you'll have a fire that burns very slowly or no fire at all. And as I said, if someone can make this happen then I'll be happy for you. You'll save some lives.
Om, nomnomnom...
The existence of the jet fuel, in the few seconds for which it existed in the fire, assured that the fire would be unstoppable and most definately not of the ordinary nature that one could expect a firefighting system to be able to stop.
It's not "Fuel fire -> ordinary fire -> collapse, as you claim. It's "Fuel fire-> really huge gigantic fire in an instant with every flammable material available in flame all at once, which would not normally happen in a normal fire -> collapse.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I would tend to disagree, particularly to the phrase 'ordinary' fire. The jet fuel, even though burned off rapidly, was the catalyst to a catostraphic and intense fire vs. an 'ordinary' fire. An experiement (and I'm not suggesting you do this) is take two equal piles of trash/wood. Start one with a match, douse the other with kerosene, and light. The second one with the ignited kerosene will have a much more intense and energy producing blaze because the fire was started with a higher heat and over a much larger surface area. It will burn out sooner, but during the time it's buring, it will produce much more intense heat vs. a 'normal fire' allowed to spread at its own rate.
Umm. .
The point of the fact is that the fireproofing material, regardless of what type it was, was shocked off the surfaces they were supposed to protect by the impact explosion. So it wouldn't have mattered if it was made of asbestos or donkey shit.
Oh, except, if the world was run by brain trusts of your caliber, then when the towers came down and sent up that huge cloud of dust which covered the entire city, (and which subsequently caused lung problems among hundreds of thousands of people), it would have instead been a cloud of asbestos filled dust.
Yeah, the world really needs your two cents on the next city planning committee.
At some point the selfishly destructive people of the world might become aware that those 'dirty no good tree huggers' actually aim to protect the intrests of all living things, up to and including ignorant & short-sighted dipshits like you.
-Fantastic Lad
Wouldn't it be 'funny' if those two towers came down as an indirect result of the very philosophy the terrorists were protesting?
Not that I'm condoning the actions of lunatic fringe Islam, but there is an interesting sort of irony present nonetheless.
-Fantastic Lad
Perhaps ordinary wasn't the word I was looking for. "Fire consisting of everyday materials (not jet fuel) burning" would have been more accurate. My point was not that the fire was not affected by the fuel at all, my point was that it was not jet fuel burning. Therefore, the burning jet fuel did not heat up the metal causing the towers to collapse. Fires started by the jet fuel caused the towers to collapse later.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
What a great post! So relevant to the topic! It's too bad that you are too stupid to realize that your penis pump will not increase the size of your paltry organ, because maybe then you would start thinking of yourself as more mature and grow the fuck up instead of acting like a idiot to attract attention to yourself.
Read the report, please. Sez jet fuel only a factor in setting rest of building contents and plane cargo ablaze, and alone would not have caused structural failure. Addtionally sez approximately 1/3 of the fuel payload caught fire. Fire control systems not intended to extinguish fires, only to keep building cool enough to remain standing until fire consumes available fuel. Like I said, you might want to try reading the actual report.
Okay. Here's a little science project for you. Unfold a paperclip. Put 50 pounds of tensile force onto the wire. This simulates the structure of the WTC. Measure the length of the paperclip. Now, go to the hardware store, get a gallon of kerosene, and light it under the paperclip. After everything is cooled, measure the paperclip. Compare. The jet fuel is significant.
There's not much stuff in an office which will burn as hot as kerosene - paper is about the only thing. The problem, however, with a liquid fuel is that it gets *everywhere*. A burning filing cabinet stays mostly where it was. 300 gallons of burning kerosene tends to spread out and share the warmth. As more liquid puddles out, more of it is exposed to air, and more of it can therefore burn at once.
The amount of paper in an office building, let's face it, is rather insignificant compared to a waterfall of burning kerosene. I'm wondering if part of the purpose of this report is to help quell panic about the inexorability of such a disaster. Note that Trump just sold the Empire State Building for $57 million - it cost $17 million to build in 1930s, that's not such a good return on a real estate investment or a national landmark...
My experience in the matter comes from melting iron to make my own castings, for fun. I burn kerosene (jet fuel) in a furnace blower, and it's quite hot enough that I can melt iron and steel very easily. I've also got a welder which will make a 3/8" thick piece of plate steel glow red hot in a few seconds, using only 120V at 15A. P = I x E. Compare that to the *gigawatts* cited in the article.
Marty McFly could've gotten home off that kind of energy.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
i agree, if u are arab, make sure u get some decent weapons cos then the U.S won't attack you for absolutely no reason whatsoever and make up a bullshit reason, such as war on terror if it means their own casualties
I can just see klerck wetting his pants right now.
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
As an analogy, imagine a person harrering a nail into some wood. Given a fairly big swing, one could imagine significant penetration of the wood. Imagine the same hammer, same swing, but no nail. Perhaps there would be an indentation on the wood, but nothing more.
No matter what happened, there would always be something that could have been designed better. It doesn't benefit anybody to point the finger at any particular groups other than the hijackers. The main thing is that we learn the prevent this thing from happening while preserving our basic values.
The WTC fell because of one reason, 2 767's hitting. Thats right, big planes filled with jet fuel hitting the towers at top speed. If the heat energy created is equivilent to that of a nuclear power plant, HOW THE FUCK are you meant to stop skyscrapers from falling? The answer: Stop it from being hit by 767's. The WTC's fell because 767's flew into them. The planes hit the WTC cos they were hijacked. They were hijacked because ppl hate the U.S Why they hate the U.S most people don't seem to know. If you want to know, the answer is simple: Kick George bush out cos hes a FUCKWIT!
There's no way in hell that I'm going to call a fire that goes from nothing to instant inferno "ordinary".
You don't, however, need jet fuel (or even any exotic accelerants) to create an "instant inferno". There have been cases of building fires travelling faster than people could run which involved only "ordinary" materials.
You're trying to spin this like a normal fire could have brought the buildings down. No Way. A normal fire would have been suppressable because it wouldn't suddenly appear everywhere all at once.
Not the case, sprinkler systems scale very well. Problem is they don't survive explosions very well. You really need the sprinkers on prior to a fuel/air explosion. Which results in a lot of energy which would have been doing damage simply creating steam.
the open cockpit doors, this wouldn't have happened. But it did. So now the cockpit doors are locked and airport security digs thru our wallets to make sure we're not carrying anything sharper than their own common sense.
If they're watching us from outer space, they must be laughing their alien asses off.
Perhaps you could take your anti-capitalist rhetoric elsewhere, comrade. If you had any decency...
Nice personal attack, McCarthy; unfortunately, you have failed to address maintenance issues. Your argument is quite patriotic making assumptions about character issues and supporting these assumptions with unrelated obvious facts about the disaster. An ad hominem argument if I saw one. You see, I am in maintenance. Coincidently, I once was offered a job as a telecommunications technician at the WTC ten years ago. The salary was less than half of what I make now. So I felt compelled to share my experience with how buildings are maintained.
I get to see what budget cuts can do to safety. Am I insensitive or anti-captialist? I am often told by management I am the best at what I do. Ethics are recognized by those in the field, but they do have a fixed budget.
Also, I might add my dad acting as a dance instructor for Aurthur Murray was at the Hyatt Regency here in Kansas City when the catwalks collapsed. He saw many people crushed. Oh, the fire system on the catwalks were operational: the dance floor had a foot of water and blood. If the WTC had that much water in their buildings, the combustibles might not have had a chance to create a high speed, high temperature blast.
Its easy to believe thoroughly engineered structures can survive on a fixed budget. Hope you feel safe while the mouths of maintenance personel are squelched from your condemning patriotic speech. I'm sorry my experiences do not qualify as decent.
Buildings of that size can get wind loads from several differt directions at once. A good strom should be able to provide 200 kt gusts to the top of the WTC.
>We (America) do our best to kill only those who >would harm us. We do that by spending millions >of dollars on precision-guided weapons. We do it >by being careful who we shoot.
You watch too much TV. Brainwashed American.
9/11 happened out of frustration with your government, your foreign policy, your contry's assumption it can do whatever it wants because it's America. 'God bless America' Land of the free my ass. Protecting democracy overseas is simply imparting an unwelcome political agenda. Erecting military bases on holy land is inexcusable.
Doing little until bitten very hard in the ass doesn't make the reaction any more honourable, any more 'right', whatever that is.
Maybe you should take a long, hard look at why this all happened in the first place. Why is there so much hatred toward America ? Hatred that wells up into terrorist acts.
You Americans seem to think your country is completely innocent of any atrocity, that you're some saviour, always welcome, always wanted. Hey.. you're not. Enourmous armies and incredible economic clout shield you from the worst that opinion and cultural feeling can throw at you. DOn't let this be a sign that you're popular though, it's more likely to indicate you're bullying your way around as per usual. 'America the international policeman' Pfft. Cops are bad enough at upholding a fading semblance of justice without being blinded by a few good deeds.
You've trashed Afghanistan , and while you've done very well in destroying the despicable Taliban, you haven't caught Bin Laden. Something tells me you've talked a lot of shit about killing 'Terrorists' though. Those you've caught you treat worse than slaves and animals. That isn't honour. There are basic human rights that should never be void, lest the same happen to you.
Karma bit you on the ass last september and you just won't stop whinging. Now your citizens are losing more rights from what I hear. Land of the free...
>Isn't there any difference at all between the
> two sides? Can't you think of anything??
America has big armies and a media machine with no equal ?
so...
>should America be punished with "violence" ??
>I don't that would solve anything.
'"Violence" ??' No question there mate, it was pretty violent. A whole 3000 of you died and 6 months later you're still pissing and moaning about it.
Yes, those 3000 people may have been innocent of the crimes they died in retaliation for. Yet 'American interests' don't bring the world peace and happiness. Quite the contrary. Look it up somewhere apart from Disney.gov, or completefarce.us.truth sometime and you might see it for yourself.
I think it solved your complacency. Except you're just meeting it with more violence. It might work, I'm no general or national leader, although I've a feeling you're just walking toward a big whole you'll have a lot of trouble backing out of.
There are many things that could have been done. To say that we just have to accept failure is ridiculous.
Like I always say: NEVER speak in infinitives....
1. If the steel beams had been coated with cement, the buildings would have been standing.
2. If the water supplies had been spread about the building they couldn't have been cut off, and the firefighters and sprinkler systems could have cut down the fire.
3. If the US military had been protecting the US (which happens to be their actual jobs) this wouldn't have happened (or at least only would have happened once instead of 3 or 4 times).
4. How about if the FAA had been doing their jobs and had air marshals and stronger cockpit doors?
There are many ways this could have been prevented... Several solutions fall on the part of the engineer. There is nothing more damaging than claiming "it's impossible, so just don't try".
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
And you, as a citizen, have the right and the responsibility to use your voting power to alter the government, the legislators, and (by proxy) the executives that you so despise. You DO vote, don't you?
And while we're at it, what cloth are YOU cut from, comrade?
The previous poster had it right: the lax airport/airline security was a direct result of conventional thinking by EVERYONE. Most terrorist hijackings up to 9/11 had been resolved without massive loss of life. Pilots and crew were trained not to resist, which is precisely what they did on 9/11. Castigating them, their bosses, or legislators for this policy is pointless as most terrorists had an agenda other than slamming planes into buildings. Now we're dealing with a different kind of animal, and our policies have changed. It is a rare plan that works in all situations for all time.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I didn't say that it was perfectly healthy to inhale for extended periods of time. I said that the concentration required to extinguish a fire leaves more than enough oxygen to breathe. It won't suffocate you. No, you won't die if a Halon system goes off when there's no fire. Yes, as I said, the decomposition products when there is a fire are quite nasty, but the decomposition products of the fire itself are probably even worse.
It is truly sad and somewhat frightening to see how thoroughly brainwashed you are. The fact that you cannot see it only makes it more frightening.
Fact: The Arab nations have pledged to destroy Israel. They proclaimed this long before Israel had Gaza or the West Bank.
Fact: The Arab nations have launched several wars of aggression against the state of Israel. These attacks were unprovoked. During the course of these wars, Israeli forces pushed back the Arab forces and took the lands now called Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. The Arabs rolled their dice and lost. Now they carp about being "occupied". Perhaps they should've thought about that before they attacked, eh?
Fact: The Arab press continually spouts vitriolic hate on a daily basis proclaiming attrocities against Muslims by Israelis. The latest farce was the claim that Jews eat a pastry that must be made with the blood of young Muslims. This was stated in the state-run newspaper of Saudi Arabia. Most Arabs believe it, although there is absolutely no proof or evidence behind it. They are just as brainwashed as you are.
Fact: Young Israeli men and women are not being brought up to strap explosives to themselves, wander into a crowded restaurant, and blow themselves and as many Arabs up as they can. Apart from two incidents where deranged Israeli's shot several Palestinians, there have been no acts of terror against innocent civilians by Israeli's. Today we heard of the fourth day in a row where another young Arab blew himself to Allah while taking out folks eating lunch. Mighty brave of him, preying on people who had no defenses, had done him no wrong. He even killed a few Arabs as well. I wonder how that sits with Allah, eh?
Fact: When the WTC towers were destroyed, Arabs danced in the streets, yet they continue to depend on the west for investment cash, technology, and popular culture. I don't care if 3000 Muslim's, Christian's, Jew's or whatever were killed, nobody should be dancing in the streets celebrating it. It was a brutal, uncivilized act of a coward, striking out from the shadows because he cannot strike any other way. The perpetrators of 9/11 will get their comeuppance, in this world or the next.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
But I'll oblige you once more, not that I think that It'll alter your narrow-minded view of the world.
l a- 110501mood.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/
http://www.progress.org/afghan03.htm
Pardon me all to hell if my sources are too "lefty" for your liking. What do you expect when innocent people are dying and the mainstream media doesn't give a shit.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Gravity only works one in one direction (which direction is left as an exercise for the reader). It is not surprising, and entirely predictable, that the building will fall down, and not sideways.
You first instinct might be to see it fall sideways, like a ladder does. But a ladder is a single object with good rigidity. Make that ladder 110 stories tall, however, and you're in a whole new ball game. And, in fact, make it dozens of ladders riveted to each other, and it's floppy as hell.
Don't think of it as a ladder, but as a sandcastle. Have a baseball hit the middle of the castle. A bit of the castle sprays out from the momentum, but most of the castle just falls straight down. If the top is heavy enough, the whole thing ends up in a pile.
It's almost certain that there is a lot of evidence that supports most, probably all religons as being, in fact, a great big load of horse shit. If you believe in religon, especially if you think its the sole reason why people kill each other, then you are the moron. Basically, the U.S were attacked because they pissed off the "muslim" group in some way or another. Ways they were pissed off relate to sanctions on Iraq, going to war for no reason, supporting israel etc. They fight with suicide bombing because it is their ONLY weapon.
I have always heard the "don't trust the truss" comment refering to the wooden trusses used in newer construction. The ones with the little plate of 'nails' that dig approx 1 cm into the surface of the wood. Those I would expect to fail quickly in a fire...
ok, i can see that you've got a +5 five there, so it's obvious that at least four other people agree with you but maybe you're taking a little too narrow view here.
ok, let's take a look at why terrorists dislike america; do they just hate us because we're not them? are they maybe jealous of us having playstation and want to swap their nintendo 64 for it. OR MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT.
hmm... blowing up a symbol of corporate rule? shame about all of those children working in the world trade center... OH WAIT.
if you push someone down in a puddle of shit for long enough, soon enough they'll pull on your instead of pushing against it.
and if you think that afganistan children and civilians don't get killed, well, maybe you should open your fucking eyes.
free (as in mp3s) electronic music
I thought asbestosis wasn't cancer. I know asbestos is harmful, I didn't think it was a carcinogen?
"The National Cancer Institute states that: Malignant Mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, is a disease in which cancer (malignant) cells are found in the sac lining the chest (the pleura) or abdomen (the peritoneum). Most people with malignant mesothelioma have worked on jobs where they breathed asbestos."
http://www.mesoth.com/diagnosis.htm
from http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ ChronologyofTerror.html#Yugoslavia
`For 78 days and nights in the Spring of 1999, United States Air Force and Navy pilots rained death indiscriminately upon women and children, old men and women shopping in marketplaces, passengers in trains, people in cars and buses, people in schools, patients in hospitals - anyone and everyone - everywhere in Yugoslavia.'
Key word: `indiscriminately'