h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is a question that has been nagging at me for years (since long before 9/11, in fact).

I mean, just take a look at this book cover from 1987!

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?ph=2&bi=276527242

http://www.mahawa.jw-music.net/scores/infernox.htm

and, of course, the most obvious one, the one which should open all the eyes of America to the fact that the Bush administration should have known:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/lgm11.jpg

from the makers of teletubbies: http://www.boohbah.com/zone.html

I'm no scientist so as far as I know this could be completely eroneous, but it raises enough questions to raise some more....

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

The two things I find interesting are that many of the govenment satellite pictures linked have been removed and all of the international links seem to bear out the theory. Then again the links may have expired and numbers can prove any number of things.

Oh sure, now I feel like an idiot! Obviously burning teletubbies reach a temperature of 1535 Celcius! *slaps forehead* Doah!

This is so much fun!

Okay. You don't have to melt the steel: you just have to get it hot enough that it isn't strong (not a difficult thing, IMHWO[in my humble welder's opinion])

No matter what, the towers aren't going to topple over like trees: toppling is rotation; rotation would require immense accelaration of the top of the tower. If by some weird event the towers did start to topple, they'd quickly crumble and just fall down.

I was surprised when the towers fell down, but after thinking about it and doing endless experiments with blocks, it seems pretty reasonable.

But this sure is fun.

I....will....now....follow......my.....masters'........commands........

That is pretty cool!

So obviously in 1987 the Teletubbies devised a rocket ship (as you so aptly show in http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?ph=2&bi=2765272 ) that heated the steel hot enough to change it's tensile strength, then throwing themselves on the blaze they not only changed the natural oscillation of the towers but added their tubby little bodies to the blaze which added enough BTUs to explain everything....no wait, I've got it wrong, haven't I?

btw,******************** Possible Statement That Might Offend Some To Follow**************** I feel no more emotion for the USians who died in that tragedy than the other people of various religious, political, and social groups from many other countries. They all have my sympathy and sorrow, I just think that humour is a valid way of looking at a subject. And the subject should be looked at in every way possible, especially scientific or with humour. It has been apologised for by bin Ladenn who said he didn't expect the extent of damage or loss of life. Some question things like the logic of the lack of damage to the Pentagon vis a vis a ground to air missile. This guy is looking at tensile strength of steel in relation to the burning of jet fuel.
For me, it's gotta be Teletubbies.

I think it was the missiles launched from the pods on the bellies of the airliners.


link to follow

here we go

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2004/042004podmissile.htm

isn't this fun?

http://www.rudemacedon.ca/911/holmgren.html

http://www.rense.com/general51/911dd.htm

And my all time favourite for truly inspired lunacy with just enough fact to make you say *Hmmmmmm....* :
http://www.oilempire.us/reichstag-fire.html

The article about what "didn't" cause the towers to fall, to my mind is rather pointless. Quite aside from the question of what else could possibly be the cause and how anything other than what millions of people witnessed, the entire article seems filled with illogical supposition.

The cement: Anyone who has seen a controlled collapse of a building has seen just how much dust a collapsed building causes. Even a 5 or 6 storey building causes an immense amount to dust which carpets the surrounding blocks, for some distance. I have watched a number of controlled collapses of buildings ranging from 1960s concrete and steel casinos, in Las Vegas, to early 1900s brick department stores in Chicago. All of them collapsed to dust and rubble. Two buildings of over 100 storeys each would create a hell of a lot more dust, as we saw.

The explosive factor: The blasts merely weaken the structure in critical spots. The weight of each floor coming down on the one below is the cause of the collapse. Certainly, the impact of the planes in all likelyhood contributed to the weakening of the external skin and, quite likely, the internal supports.

The heat: In the case of the Twin Towers, it is entirely plausable that the intense heat from the ignited fuel not only compromised the internal upright supports but also the outer skin and any internal walls. Combined with any compromise caused by the impact of the planes, it is quite plausable that all of this was the cause of the collapse.

My favorite crackpot is a local guy.

Harold C. Funk puts a "newsletter" on a weekly, I think, basis, called "The Beat on the Street". It is a badly typed leaflet, both sides of an 8.5 X 11 sheet of paper. He hands these out to passers-by, tapes them to lamp-posts, and puts them under the wipers of parked cars. He also pickets outside Parliament because he was disbarred.

He signs himself Harold C. Funk, Barrister (the Barrister is crossed out). http://www.thebeatonthestreet.ottawa.on.ca/

It's amazing what you guys get up to while I'm fast asleep.


az

You know, the level of discourse on this thread has been much higher than I expected. On the other hand, the level of discourse on this identically named thread F19585?thread=548393 is far lower than I hoped.