• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

genoa tragedy

  • Thread starter Thread starter numero1
  • Start date Start date
If they were reliable, they would have spoken before, not after.
eco media jacking is a fashion. who defends the sword treats the territory poisoned by the flood, but the day before he took advantage of the companies in his own territory, among the greatest in the world, up to this article. It's always the same pappa. no one knows/sees/says anything then the lights of the tipping hit a drama, and all to sgomitate for their own piece of celebrity.

After such an accident, the assalogue with the spotlight on what was to say? "No fear, it's all right here"? [cit.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you allow me, I try to give a geographical position to the towers, if I'm wrong, you'll excuse me.
therefore the tower that is seen (the first) should be that of the port of lisbon.

in the Mediterranean.

aberdeen, in Scotland.

this will have ultra technological and resistant foundations if it is the tower of the akita port in Japan, perhaps the greatest danger there is a tsunami.

gedda in Saudi Arabia is clearly easy.

The last is the gate of the black sea.

I hope I'm not wrong.
 
I seemed to have said that the port of genova did not grow at the same pace to the size of the ships and to the traffic but maybe I just dreamed of it.
exa I cannot ask assologistica to read our forum before writing a statement, however the part I was interested in the article was this:

"It became, therefore, necessary to question why it was erected on the sea, a short distance from the stern of the ships in maneuver, the construction that housed pilots and captains, in total absence of safety. "

The rest seems to me obvious contingent considerations.
but maybe they're not titrated to make similar statements either.
 
exa I cannot ask assologistica to read our forum before writing a statement, however the part I was interested in the article was this:

"It became, therefore, necessary to question why it was erected on the sea, a short distance from the stern of the ships in maneuver, the construction that housed pilots and captains, in total absence of safety. "

The rest seems to me obvious contingent considerations.
but maybe they're not titrated to make similar statements either.
it becomes necessary to wonder why, before the black wild, Nobody. he had never questioned whether the tower had been erected in a position in total safety absence considered until the evening of the incident "virtneristic and avant-garde" (for confirming to do a google research with, for example, the words "adventuristic Genoa pilot tower").
 
If they were reliable, they would have spoken before, not after.
Maybe they did? I don't know.
After such an accident, the assalogue with the spotlight on what was to say? "No fear, it's all right here"? [cit.]
we read two different articles.

(cut)
What I wanted to prove is that building towers predicting, earthquakes, tzunami, meteorites and anything else and not thinking about a collision with a ship in a water mirror where 140.000 maneuvers a year are made, it does not seem a correct interpretation of a probability scale of accidental event.
In fact, elsewhere, they strangely thought about it, that's all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it becomes necessary to wonder why, before the black wild, Nobody. he had never questioned whether the tower had been erected in a position in total safety absence considered until the evening of the incident "virtneristic and avant-garde" (for confirming to do a google research with, for example, the words "adventuristic Genoa pilot tower").
I can't answer that. I don't know if anyone's ever questioned.
we say that I am convinced, but my personal conviction, that of voices "out of the choir" there will be, you will see.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Staff online

Members online

Back
Top