Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, lets us hypothetically suppose the notion of arranging 9/11 as an excuse hit Bushs desk.
He is then going to have the choice between setting up the plane hijackings, getting demolitions charges into the buildings and making up evidence connecting this to Saddam. An incredibly complex scheme involving thousands of things that could go wrong (KSS -keep it simple, stupid) and scores to hundreds of co-conspirators (Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead -Benjamin Franklin).
Or as option B he could just wait for Saddam to do something stupid like refuse weapons inspectors somewhere. Which Saddam inevitably would.
The cost-benefits ratio of scheme A would be...chance of failiure approaches total, cost if detected, everything. Benefit if successful, pretty much nothing you'd not get for just sitting around, so nil.
Anyone who picks alternative A of those two options going to be too dementedly devoid of common sense to ever pull off something that difficult and complex. They are also not going to be able to get anywhere in life from the word go. If you are a person inclined to schemes so massivly complicated and insanely risky over easy and simple alternatives you are not going to have the life skills to hold down a job or complete an education.
Far less rise to the highest office in the land, which involves a history of struggling against a lot of competent rivals.
Real life would just weed out anyone that dumb. And Darwin might well get them before they left their teens.
Also. People who read a lot of comic books may have seen a lot of pictures of Superman lifting an oil tanker or pushing a planet or something. Thats not real life. Superman would go through the steel of the tanker like a bullet thru soft butter. And if his point of impact was reinforced so he didn't, the tanker would break in half before it got out of the water.
If you make a small scale model of something like an oil tanker, you can pick it up. If you try to lift a real oil tanker like that, it breaks.
Things don't work the same at megascale as they do at person size scale.
Additionally. When someone puts up a building, he has a budget and materials. He is going to calculate how much money he needs to spend on materials, how much pressure and punishment it'll need to take, and from which direction. And then he'll add a safety factor. No skyscraper is going to be very far over that safety factor, because that would be throwing away money.
What is sad is how gullible and naive people are. It makes nefarious plans all the more inviting.
Not my fault it's taken you ten years to form an uninformed, personal opinion.
The rest of us have been looking objectively at the situation since it happened and after all of the inquiries could form a well educated thought torwards it about three years after the tragedy.
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Seehttp://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html
October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Seehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.]
Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html
Not my fault it's taken you ten years to form an uninformed, personal opinion.
The rest of us have been looking objectively at the situation since it happened and after all of the inquiries could form a well educated thought torwards it about three years after the tragedy.
People like you who tout they have a "well educated" opinion on anything should always be questioned, and always will be from thinking people.
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Seehttp://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html
October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Seehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.]
Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html
I see, now which one of those buildings also had a 110 story building fall on it?
Let's not forget the hotel in Madrid which burned for 2 days. A
February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. Seehttp://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html
October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. Seehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See http://www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html [This page has been removed.]
Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html
So what do we learn from this?
...buildings built in earthquake zones are build sturdier?
...building stuff on top of a power station isn't recommendable?
...tall buildings are not designed to withstand impacts from the side?
...the heat of a fire, and how easily it can get to the support skeleton of a building matter?
...how much weight rests on the stressed structure is important?
All these are sane things to learn from the above, and will score 2 marks each on an engineering exam
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.