Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Docbungle, I think will is trying to show us that, while planes crashed into the building, that impact and the resulting fire were not enough to account for the collapse of the buildings that followed. I'm not trying to steal his thunder, but if will can convince people that the force of impact and heat of the burning jet fuel shouldn't have caused a collapse like the one we saw, we'll have to start thinking about what other factors could have been present.
|
Uber, this is the problem with conspiracy theories such as this one. You and others are saying that, even though these planes crashed into the tower, that was not the reason the tower fell because, well, the towers are supposed to be strong enough to handle it.
You know, the Dallas Stars were supposed to be strong enough to beat the Avalanche in the playoffs this year, but they got creamed.
What's "supposed" to happen isn't really ironclad in the real world.
What's supposed to happen is an assumption, based on other things that have happened. Not the other way around. We can't change something that happened by saying it wasn't supposed to happen that way because it doesn't match my calculations.
What it does mean is that you need to change your calculations , because they are obviously flawed. Because what happened will not be reversing itself to fit into nice, tidy, neat little calculations for you.
When was the last time you saw two jetliners crashed into a building the size of the World Trade Center on a test run, just to test out the structual integrity of the building? That's right, never. So you'r calculations are nothing more than speculation. Because they haven't been tested in a controlled environment to match the real world conditions we are "debating."