Community Messageboard: Contemplate this.... by Jeordam

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Contemplate this.... Jeordam Send a noteboard - 20/09/2011 04:27:52 PM

The way the buildings fell, for instance. Or the fact that jet fuel isn't capable of burning hot enough to have caused the collapse. Stuff like that. Was 9/11 orchestrated? I really don't know. But it's at least worth discussing.

How much does a plane that big weigh? We're talking with all the people on board, luggage/freight, and fuel. I'm guessing quite a bit. Now slam that weight going, what 100mpg or so (I'm honestly not sure), into the side of a building. All of a sudden, the support structure of the building has to account for the massive amount of extra weight that it wasn't designed to support.

And then on top of that, all of the momentum of the plane that had to be absorbed by the building itself was a further compication. Remember when the Federal Building in OK was attacked. Remember how there was a huge hole in the entire side of the building and one could see into the halls/rooms through the wreckage. That was a conventionally built buidling, with support beams throughout the outer walls and within the structure itself. The WTC Towers were not built like that. Instead the lattice work outer shell of the building was the main support structure. If that was damaged.....

So you have a huge mass with some significant momentum slamming into the side of a lattice supported building. At the point of impact, that side's latticework is...well...gone. Meaning the weight of the floors above is now unevenly distributed. Now incorporate the inertia that was absorbed by the lattice. If memory serves me correctly, both planes hit a side directly (right?)...not a corner head on? That means that the lattice on the opposite side of impact took the brunt of the force. Somewhere along the opposite side outer latice, stress caused a break. Add in the extra weight of the planes, and it was just a matter of time.

You will note that I'm not addressing if anyone worked for anyone, or it was an inside job...or anything along those lines. That is not my point. My point is that with science, physics, and, well...logic....one can avoid any issues such as you mentioned. To Star Trek this up, there's an episode of Voyager (called Conspiracy if I remember correctly) where 7 of 9 freaks out. She starts making conjectures such as you mentioned, and ends up seeing something that isn't really there.

~Jeordam

ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985

Reply to message

We really need to have Logic as a course in high schools. Tom - 20/09/2011 06:50:36 AM 1212 Views

Logic classes would be good in schools. Timthetrolloc - 20/09/2011 10:23:56 AM 762 Views

Ugh. Ghavrel - 20/09/2011 11:30:59 AM 749 Views

Re: Ugh. Timthetrolloc - 21/09/2011 12:03:31 AM 708 Views

Something tells me that no matter who answered your questions you wouldn't believe anyway. everynametaken - 21/09/2011 02:16:52 AM 726 Views

this is a controlled demolition Timthetrolloc - 21/09/2011 12:20:09 AM 830 Views

That is an incredibly stupid argument. Tom - 21/09/2011 01:12:38 AM 737 Views

I've seen controlled demolitions in person. They happen in the opposite order of the WTC collapses. Ghavrel - 21/09/2011 03:54:35 AM 757 Views

Asking questions is never wrong. ironclad - 20/09/2011 12:22:22 PM 676 Views

Re: Asking questions is never wrong. Timthetrolloc - 20/09/2011 11:57:04 PM 824 Views

Agreed Camilla - 20/09/2011 01:09:40 PM 705 Views

I've long advocated this for the reasons Tom states as well as others. Joel - 21/09/2011 06:49:28 AM 662 Views

I don't know if the Internet is degrading skills, or just giving stupid people a voice beetnemesis - 20/09/2011 02:33:24 PM 774 Views

There is compelling evidence that 9/11 was not what it seemed Dark Knight - 20/09/2011 03:06:58 PM 792 Views

No, there is not. Tom - 20/09/2011 03:19:43 PM 869 Views

Well, the circumstances were odd at least Dark Knight - 20/09/2011 03:26:40 PM 749 Views

As far as conspiracies go ... Nate - 20/09/2011 03:36:35 PM 811 Views

what would be the motive for the US doing something that stupid? random thoughts - 20/09/2011 04:40:31 PM 670 Views

I'm not sure you got my gist. Nate - 20/09/2011 04:46:28 PM 674 Views

I don't think there is any evidience that Bush wanted to attack Iraq before 9-11 random thoughts - 20/09/2011 05:21:09 PM 726 Views

Um. Well, sure, that would be true. If you ignored all the evidence. Nate - 20/09/2011 05:45:23 PM 780 Views

Well if you had argued that some Bush advisers wanted to attack Iraq I would have agreed random thoughts - 20/09/2011 06:35:07 PM 764 Views

But that's what I DID argue. Nate - 20/09/2011 06:47:17 PM 752 Views

sorry but you need to be more precise in your terms random thoughts - 21/09/2011 02:37:36 PM 747 Views

I've always seen them as separate. Nate - 21/09/2011 03:33:14 PM 599 Views

and that is why I decided to drop it random thoughts - 21/09/2011 04:07:02 PM 756 Views

Heh. Nate - 21/09/2011 04:15:34 PM 710 Views

And the explicit statement of a Bush Cabinet member. Joel - 21/09/2011 06:59:47 AM 842 Views

I'm still annoyed. Nate - 21/09/2011 01:58:38 PM 656 Views

I stopped responfding when suddenly realized I didn't want to be in a Bush Iraq war debate random thoughts - 21/09/2011 02:53:29 PM 649 Views

Admitting error is a sign of weakness; Don Draper said so.

Joel - 21/09/2011 05:37:31 PM 684 Views

and I pointed that it was was just continuin gthe Clinton policy random thoughts - 21/09/2011 02:30:13 PM 725 Views

Even if that were true, it would still be flip flopping on a central Bush platform plank. Joel - 21/09/2011 05:45:10 PM 760 Views

In addition: Nate - 20/09/2011 05:57:33 PM 764 Views

sorry but that is nothing more than a simple statement of fact random thoughts - 20/09/2011 06:40:51 PM 799 Views

This is very frustrating. Nate - 20/09/2011 07:05:48 PM 750 Views

For the war on terror? Dark Knight - 20/09/2011 04:49:12 PM 772 Views

And what was the war on terror supposed to accomplish? random thoughts - 20/09/2011 05:12:11 PM 725 Views

That contradicts the evidence. Tom - 20/09/2011 06:15:48 PM 746 Views

Excuse me? Macharius - 20/09/2011 08:22:21 PM 776 Views

Huh? Dark Knight - 20/09/2011 08:57:14 PM 766 Views

the problem with any other theory is the make no sense random thoughts - 20/09/2011 04:36:02 PM 721 Views

Contemplate this.... Jeordam - 20/09/2011 04:27:52 PM 739 Views

You just did not go Star Trek on me

Dark Knight - 20/09/2011 04:44:28 PM 734 Views

And how did you know... Jeordam - 20/09/2011 05:17:10 PM 834 Views

Re: And how did you know... Timthetrolloc - 21/09/2011 12:16:26 AM 826 Views

You should watch the pilot episode of the X-Files spin-off series The Lone Gunmen. TaskmasterJack - 20/09/2011 08:19:15 PM 790 Views

humans tend to be very bad at critical thinking random thoughts - 20/09/2011 04:58:43 PM 679 Views

Won't help Praziquantel - 20/09/2011 08:15:36 PM 749 Views

Make 'em all take debate. nossy - 20/09/2011 08:23:37 PM 729 Views

Would madam like a cane? Elaine - 20/09/2011 09:19:53 PM 827 Views

Maybe a walker with tennis balls on the bottom. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 20/09/2011 10:33:39 PM 352 Views

Do you think it would help? aerocontrols - 21/09/2011 12:09:42 AM 693 Views

Re: We really need to have Logic as a course in high schools. Timthetrolloc - 21/09/2011 12:10:08 AM 718 Views

Yeah, and the 100,000 pounds of sudden extra weight slammed into the towers at 400 mph...? Tom - 21/09/2011 01:05:18 AM 709 Views

Not actually the best example Isaac - 21/09/2011 01:56:03 AM 696 Views

what about the hole it cut into the frame of the building? random thoughts - 21/09/2011 03:23:07 AM 735 Views

Wouldn't make much difference Isaac - 21/09/2011 04:08:27 AM 714 Views

OK thanks *NM* random thoughts - 21/09/2011 02:55:52 PM 386 Views

The fireproofing was scraped off the steel by the crash, so the beams melted. Aeryn - 21/09/2011 07:35:08 PM 917 Views

Re: Yeah, and the 100,000 pounds of sudden extra weight slammed into the towers at 400 mph...? Timthetrolloc - 21/09/2011 03:02:19 AM 762 Views

But how else would they fall down? Aeryn - 21/09/2011 07:42:27 PM 620 Views

You would force Euler on to the masses? Two Wongs - 21/09/2011 03:21:40 PM 786 Views

You could still argue. Vivien - 21/09/2011 04:06:51 PM 645 Views

I didn't mean to imply that it is no fun to argue with a like-minded person

Two Wongs - 21/09/2011 04:15:47 PM 676 Views

Eh, nobody uses pure logic all of the time anyway. Vivien - 21/09/2011 10:43:51 PM 719 Views

Or they could just do more math. Cold, hard, beautiful math. Vivien - 21/09/2011 04:01:05 PM 668 Views

I love geometry proofs. Nate - 21/09/2011 04:10:57 PM 782 Views

Me too

<3 proofs! *NM* LaSombra - 21/09/2011 07:55:38 PM 384 Views

For pure enjoyment, here's a non math version. Vivien - 21/09/2011 10:10:40 PM 678 Views

+1 *NM* Isaac - 21/09/2011 07:59:57 PM 299 Views

Now we are talking... Everyone can benefit from some basic Euclid. jh - 21/09/2011 08:32:17 PM 926 Views

Ha. Ha. Vivien - 21/09/2011 09:56:38 PM 724 Views

As a follower of Cthulhu, I strongly disagree. Tom - 21/09/2011 11:13:55 PM 879 Views

I really and truly appreciate your love of pure math for math's sake, but... Tom - 21/09/2011 11:10:03 PM 698 Views

Well, it requires a lot more science to really dispute things than HS can give someone Isaac - 21/09/2011 11:28:29 PM 724 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="226540">
<quote id="226529">The way the buildings fell, for instance. Or the fact that jet fuel isn't capable of burning hot enough to have caused the collapse. Stuff like that. Was 9/11 orchestrated? I really don't know. But it's at least worth discussing.</quote>

And then on top of that, all of the momentum of the plane that had to be absorbed by the building itself was a further compication. Remember when the Federal Building in OK was attacked. Remember how there was a huge hole in the entire side of the building and one could see into the halls/rooms through the wreckage. That was a conventionally built buidling, with support beams throughout the outer walls and within the structure itself. The WTC Towers were not built like that. Instead the lattice work outer shell of the building was the main support structure. If that was damaged.....

So you have a huge mass with some significant momentum slamming into the side of a lattice supported building. At the point of impact, that side's latticework is...well...gone. Meaning the weight of the floors above is now unevenly distributed. Now incorporate the inertia that was absorbed by the lattice. If memory serves me correctly, both planes hit a side directly (right?)...not a corner head on? That means that the lattice on the opposite side of impact took the brunt of the force. Somewhere along the opposite side outer latice, stress caused a break. Add in the extra weight of the planes, and it was just a matter of time.

You will note that I'm not addressing if anyone worked for anyone, or it was an inside job...or anything along those lines. That is not my point. My point is that with science, physics, and, well...logic....one can avoid any issues such as you mentioned. To Star Trek this up, there's an episode of Voyager (called Conspiracy if I remember correctly) where 7 of 9 freaks out. She starts making conjectures such as you mentioned, and ends up seeing something that isn't really there.

~Jeordam
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password