(No actual wombats were harmed in the making of this song. This is a work of pure plagiarization…any resemblance to wombats, living or dead is purely coincidental)
-XT
I seem to attract nutcases. One time I had to meet someone near Khao San Road. I was early, so it being late afternoon, I stopped in at Gulliver’s Travelers’ Tavern on the corner of Khao San, which is the main backpacker area. It has a nice bar inside, and I’m sitting there amid all the young backpackers when I notice this one middle-aged guy staring at me. Then he comes over and strikes up a conversation. He felt it necessary to tell me all about how the government tore down WTC to sell the steel. Said he read this in a book, and that since it was in a book it was irrefutable, or maybe because it was because it was written by this one obscure writer, dunno. He was very insistent on this, and the fact I could not pull any data from my backpack that would refute was treated as further proof that this was correct. Not that I tried to refute it for long, as I soon paid my check and left, keeping an eye out behind me in case he was following.
He claimed to be Canadian, although that may not have anything to do with it.
I’m just glad to hear a Canadian nutter is in Thailand instead of here, riding our Greyhounds.
Well, don’t lose your head over it…
We have strayed off topic. The question is why WTC 7 was sabotaged. Now I’m leaning towards it being where they moved the Roswell evidence. This last windstorm is suspicious too. When was the last time we had 109 MPH winds in Manhattan?
Also, has anyone discounted the idea that WTC 7 was a giant piece of pork. And that’s what they meant by “pull it”? Maybe it was another case of Southerners not letting go of the Civil War. I don’t know if it’s true, I’m just asking questions.
I don’t think any of the buildings were sabotaged. I think they were poorly designed and/or poorly built.
You may have a point. I for one always design and build my skyscrapers to stand up to the utterly routine and predictable impact of passenger planes.
It was an elaborately expanded fart joke. “Pull my finger!” —> WT7 collapses
That’s what happens when you cut corners and build skyscrapers out of structural steel instead of adamantium. At any time planes, wombats, marauding supervillains might come along and knock them down.
You need to think outside the box more…they should have made them out of nerf material (the planes too), then when they struck the towers they would have just bounced off. Probably would have been on one of those funniest video shows, seeing a nerf air plane hit a nerf building and knocking over a nerf combat wombat riding a nerf battle bunny…
-XT
C’mon, everybody knows unobtainium is the material of choice.
Well, if it was unobtainium, the buildings should have been able to just fly up to let the jets pass under…
(Well, according to James Cameron, anyway…wasn’t unobtainium a necessary element for anti-gravity?)
You’re right! Why WASN’T the building able to dodge the plane??
It all goes back to shoddy design.
No mention of the crappy design of the planes? Those things just folded when they hit the towers.
Actually you do. Some people not too smart make the claim that planes are bigger now. That would require believing you build to just escape the requirements. That is wrong. When you design something you go big on safety factors. You do not design to just get by because the liabilities of making a mistake can be crippling. Anybody who designs closely is asking for trouble.
Airplanes hit the first 2 bldgs. The argument is hitting them and spilling airplane fuel all over caused the bldgs to fall. Bldg 7 was not hit by a plane. It did not get doused with airplane fuel. It was less than half as tall as the towers.
The law suit that finished a few months ago said the diesel fuel was not a factor in the bldgs fall. It was not hit by an airplane. But it fell as badly as the other two. The conclusion is simple, the design sucked. Buildings don’t just fall. Lots of them have been on fire without falling. But we did not have one fall. We had 3 of them fall.
So, gonzo, your actual complaint here is that they don’t make buildings strong enough to survive having another building dropped on them?
You’re right. That is some pretty heinous incompetence.
This is a case of Shaken Building Syndrome. We need to edumacate our adult buildings not to shake the little ones, no matter how bad they feel.
WTC7 was shocked and fainted.
No…some people with more than two brain cells to rub together (sadly, you are not in this less than select group) were pointing out that comparisons to what happened to the Empire State Building weren’t analogous, since the plane that hit it was A) smaller and B) wasn’t full of fuel. I realize that this isn’t going to get through the meter or so of bone you call a skull, but figured I’d give it a whirl.
Buildings aren’t designed for every possible disaster scenario, despite what you seem to think. The reason doesn’t have anything to do with shoddy designs or poor construction, but instead with cost…you simply can’t engineer a building to take every type of impact or disaster available, not and keep the building affordable.
No…that would be a ‘strawman’.
Yes…you do. But you can’t design a building to face every contingency or improbable event. 9/11 was such an event. The two towers were hit by fully loaded modern jet air liners flying at high speed…not something the designers every planned for. Why? Because jets don’t routinely fly fully loaded and at top speed through the city, nor did the designers consider that some idiot would deliberately fly such a plane into the buildings with the intent to use the air plane as a weapon. It’s just not something anyone planned on when the buildings were designed.
Even after the event I doubt you could design a building to resist such an attack and keep the costs such that the building would be build-able. You would have to put in too much reinforcing, and too many redundant fire fighting systems.
Since no one is saying this you are basically talking to your own feeble strawman.
Perhaps you should actually learn something about the subject before expounding on it, ehe? The air plane fuel was PART of the reason the buildings fell. The high speed impact of the air planes was another big part, since they damaged many of the structural supports, and exposed others to the naked flames without the benefits of the fire retarding materials that would otherwise have been on them. Another part was the fires CAUSED by the jet fuel. Also, the jets it at an angle, causing damage to multiple floors at once, and also spewing jet fuel and fire onto multiple floors at once. Other parts were the fact that the fire retarding system was disrupted and rendered inoperable, thus the fires were essentially unchecked. All of these were contributing factors to the collapse.
You do realize that the building was, in fact, on fire…right? That said fire was unchecked for most of the day…right? Do you think the fire was magical in origin? Did magic fairies create it? The half mythical battle bunny riding combat wombats? Or did you not realize that it was on fire?
Did you not also realize that, when the towers fell, they rained down debris on Tower 7 (as well as several other buildings), heavily damaging it (plus, contrary to the fairy fire theory, causing the fires in Building 7)?
No…of COURSE you didn’t realize any of this, because you are a clueless idiot who doesn’t know thing one about this subject, and just decided to wander in to give your own bizarre CT take on things.
Cite? It wasn’t a factor at all? I call horseshit. Not that I’m holding my breath for you to give a credible cite, mind…
No…it was hit by debris from the collapsing twin towers. Or magic fairies or combat wombats did it I suppose…could be either. Or, maybe it just fell over because it was designed badly, and by coincidence it just HAPPENED to fall over at the same time the twin towers were attacked and destroyed…
The conclusion IS simple…you are a moron.
Gee…really?
Name some. I can guarantee you that none of them suffered as much damage, or had the same level of uncontrolled fire for a similar period. Again…not exactly holding my breath here for you to give a cite…
Seeing as how I’m skeptical you can count to 3 I have to ask…how do you know it was 3? Maybe it was 2 or 4…
-XT