Page 185 of 968 FirstFirst ... 85135175181182183184185186187188189195235285685 ... LastLast
Results 2,761 to 2,775 of 14513

Thread: WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

  1. #2761
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New York, Las Vegas, LA
    Posts
    182

    Post

    Somebody sent me this

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

    what others think of it?

  2. #2762

    Default

    Yes I've already seen that documentary. It breaks one of the first rules of documentary filmmaking its not at all objective with its source material. It already comes with an agenda and uses material to prove what it believes to be the truth.

    Much of its evidence was paperwork. Thy used quotes that may have been taken out of their original context. Or quotes that could be refuted by the person they claimed stated them. They used facts that may have had nothing to do with a government conspiracy to destroy the WTC.

    The biggest problem I had is the documentary is that it came to conclusions that were not unquestionably proven with its presented evidence. Such as missiles firing from the airliners just before they penetrate the sides of the twin towers. Or the conclusion that the WTC was brought down by explosive demolition. They used sound bites of people saying they heard explosions, but no one saw an any explosion.

    They should have consulted a demolitions expert who could have explained what he/she would have done to bring the towers down in this respect. Looking at what did happen how could demolitions have realistically played a part. That could have brought more validity to their argument. The risk for them would be the demolitions expert telling them realistically explosives would not have worked properly under those conditions or the towers would not have fallen in that way.

    The documentary shows other buildings that were on fire and burning for hours but never fall. This does not take into account the fact that those buildings were not structurally damaged by a wide body jetliner. Or the fact that those buildings may have been built differently from the WTC. The way the buildings weight is distributed may have been significantly different.

    I was surprised that they completely ignored the fact that the Empire State Building was hit by an airplane and did not fall. Something either the documentarians did not know or did know but could not explain.

    Over all the doc did raise interesting discrepancies in the governments account of the day and why it happened. I already never believed the governments story about what happened and why, so it doesn't tell me much new in that respect.

    I think the doc could be taken more seriously by more people if it only pointed out the inconsistencies and unanswered questions without coming to its own conclusions.
    Last edited by Teno; May 2nd, 2006 at 08:01 PM.

  3. #2763
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Is it true that this documentary was actually produced by the Dept. of Homeland Security using our tax dollars -- just so someone could say "Look at all the crazy ideas out here!"

  4. #2764

    Default

    Look at the bright side. At least with all these brainless 9/11 conspiracies, we can finally stop having to listen to all the brainless Kennedy asassination conspiracies that have been plaguing us for the last 40+ years. Oliver Stone has officially moved on from JFK to WTC, and thus so can the rest of us.

  5. #2765

    Default

    I would rather go back to the comparatively benign Kennedy ones.

  6. #2766
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evil_synth
    They fell because the jet fuel burns quite hot. Not hot enough to melt the support beams, but hot enough to weaken them significantly (Think of a stick of butter, if you put it in the oven it will melt, but if you leave on a table, it'll simply become soft). The weakening of the beams led to the collapse of the upper floors which crashed down onto the lower floors creating a huge spike in the pressure on the lower columns which completely overwhelemed their holding capacity. This led to the complete collapse of the towers.

    Just look for my comments on it.

    Reasons for collapse:

    Damage to supporting columns
    Damage to core (which acted as teporary support utilizing teh roof-trusses)
    Heat

    The columns were taken out, the load transferred through the roof truss to the core (one of which was damaged more than the other, making it support less load). The remaining support system was heated and softened, weakening the columns and also making them more susceptable to buckling (sudden) failure)

    Teh columns collapsed and the structure above collapsed what it fell on top of.


    The explosive theory is BS, missiles would have done SQUAT to a building that big, and most other conspiracy teory is absolute tripe.

    Fry it up and eat it with hot sauce, I am tired of hearing about it.

  7. #2767

    Default

    Since they pop up almost immediately, conspiracy theories start with a conclusion and work backwards, picking up as many "facts" as they can that fit the conclusion. The goal is volume, since most of the facts can easily be countered with more logical conclusions. However, for most people, it is tedious enough to just listen to all this stuff, let alone search out rebuttals.

    I'll offer two items:

    1. Silverstein buys insurance, with a terrorism clause, weeks before 09/11. He must have had prior knowledge.

    Well, it has become overshadowed by 09/11, but there was a terrorist attack just 8 years earlier. And if Silverstein knew about the attack, why did he underinsure the property.

    2. If the government really pulled off this conspiracy, it was a marvel of complex planning. Yet, the primary goal of the conspiracy, the war in Iraq, evidently was not planned at all. Suddenly, this same government can't do anything right, not even plan for a hurricane they knew was on the way.

    That's it for me.

  8. #2768

    Default

    Actually going through all those conspiracy sights, really ive never seen so many people claim circumstantial evidence as truth, I found this really cool video by the PA about the building of the WTC. The enormity of the whole project is amazing and I love cheesy 70s govt made videos.


    http://media.thetruthseeker.org/mirr...e%20Center.wmv

  9. #2769
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    I rather hear conspircay theories rather then listen to what our government releases as officially true. One big example... the main reason of why are we in Iraq.

  10. #2770
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    but ya know what they say: "two wrongs .... "

  11. #2771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teno
    I was just talking with someone the other day who claimed they heard their was no way the WTC could fall just from the fire.

    Some people believe without doubt the government destroyed the towers.

    The people presenting evidence to prove this themselves exclude or ignore variables that they don't understand or have clear information about.
    The melting fire by itself can't destroy a building by collapse. However, the towers were structurally compromised because the planes knocked out columns and parts of the facades, which were part of the buildings' support system.

    BTW, you should see how the conspiracy theorists argue that 7 WTC was controlled demolition. They take a quote by Silverstein out of context:

    "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

    Alex Jones claims that "pull it" means controlled demolition in industry terms, but if you read the whole paragraph, he's talking about pulling the firefighters back. The "it" in "pull it" meant the firefighters.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

    Here's a good debunking of this:
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

  12. #2772
    Senior Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Question: If all of the new WTC gets built as planned, would it be technically possible to reconstruct the twin towers on the exact same location of the original? If so, what would that look like? More than a few readers of Wired New York have produced concept drawings...anybody done this particular scheme, yet? It would be interesting to see how this might look: 3 towers instead of 2.

  13. #2773

    Default

    No, unless the memorial redesign is to replace the twin towers in their footprints.

  14. #2774
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob
    It would be interesting to see how this might look: 3 towers instead of 2.
    Actually, if they built what is currently planned plus re-built the original twins then that would be a total of 8 or 9 towers in that smallish 16+ acre area.

    That would leave hardly any open space at all (other than a bit at the SW quadrant and another in the NE around the Calatrava building).

    Methinks it would be a tad imposing with all that mass & height in such close proximity to each other.

  15. #2775
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit, MI
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1
    Actually, if they built what is currently planned plus re-built the original twins then that would be a total of 8 or 9 towers in that smallish 16+ acre area.

    That would leave hardly any open space at all (other than a bit at the SW quadrant and another in the NE around the Calatrava building).

    Methinks it would be a tad imposing with all that mass & height in such close proximity to each other.
    IMO they should rebuild the twins and the site as they were on the original site, but:

    - make 4 & 5 WTC more modern, each w/ 15 floors
    - make 6 WTC the memorial
    - move the freedom tower to the deutsche bank site

    what do you think?

Similar Threads

  1. New 51-story tower Downtown
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 09:20 PM
  2. Renderings CIBC Tower
    By NoyokA in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 19th, 2003, 07:17 PM
  3. 3 Buildings From 1830's Threatened By a Tower - Downtown
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 29th, 2003, 11:08 AM
  4. A Home Depot in the Bloomberg Tower?
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 15th, 2003, 03:16 AM
  5. Special Issues for Merrill, the Landlord
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2002, 12:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software