WTC7 was the actual intended target of flight 93?

[humanoid]

Most people don’t know that WTC7 building has already been rebuilt! This may very well be because those involved did not want to draw attention to this building!

http://www.wtc.com/inner_page.aspx?id=11

It is equally vital to ask these questions: if construction of the new WTC7 was started in 2002 and completed in May of 2006, “when was the replacement building originally planned?” How long does it take to draw up the plans and actually build a 52 story building, especially in the footprint of damage done on 9/11? How long does it take to prepare for this kind of construction from the time you decide to build?

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=573

[rodin]

[telecasterisation]

[blackcat]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

From a dimboid layman's point of view and knowing a tinsy winsy bit about building regulations I would have thought that the, as yet, unexplained destruction of a building like WTC7 would have had a crucial impact on the proposed designs of all future steel framed buildings.

[blackcat]

Exactly. If it was not the structure (the type of which is proven NOT to collapse by fire) then it must have been the geology or something associated with the terrain such as the subway system or the effect of the water table. Any such investigation? I doubt it - why bother when they know it was blown up.

[telecasterisation]

All this rhetoric about building regulations is a complete misnomer.

When the Comet aircraft started to crash, they didn't ground every type of plane until the problem was identified. The replacement WTC7 is not a carbon copy plus, and most importantly, WTC7 did not simply collapse for no reason, in other words the design alone is not being questioned.

There was a fire and a percentage was destroyed by falling masonry. This is therefore not just a case of poor architectural design accounting solely for the collapse - there is no question whatsoever that the basic design of the building alone is responsible for it falling down. It was a combination of factors, otherwise, every tall similar building would be subject to scrutiny.

There is only so much that can be built into a building's design in anticipation that it is going to be partially demolished by an explosion or falling masonry and a fire.

Perhaps Mr Gobell can elaborate further on his spartan knowledge of American building regulations as they relate to collapse as a result of fire/other ancillary damage and the impact on subsequent replacement structures of a more robust construction?

[rodin]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

Tele. I have no knowledge of US Building Regs. nor do I need any.

A basic understanding of how the system works in this country is enough to inform me and leads to an educated guess that structural failure of any kind needs to be investigated and understood and lessons learned fed back into future building design and safety standards.

That is my understanding of how the system works.

[ian neal]

[telecasterisation]