Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atom
I do wonder though, if it's true, why people weren't informed of the application of this tecnology.
|
That is a very good question.
But why would they not be documented within the construction plans and such? And if they did exist, why not just say that. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, yes, we destroyed the two towers out of safety for the citizens of New York. The temperatures reached within the building were likely enough to cause some structure damage to the building which may have led it to breaking off and falling over. The destruction of that would have been enormous, so we triggered a series of explosives which were built into the towers to prevent such a thing from occurring.
Surely there will still be those (possibly myself, still) who question what exactly went down on that day and those leading up to it... but on the face, I'm sure it would appease most people. It seems like a logical plan of action in that case.
How many more would have died had those buildings tipped to one side and collapsed onto the city blocks? All of that weight? Subways would have collapsed, many more buildings would have been lost. Many more bystanders. I don't think it would have been a tough sell.