Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by spgoode:
Originally posted by SteedaSVTââ??¢:
the plane had something like 300k pounds of few...
it can't melt a i beam? But it can topple a 111story building X2?
It can and did. I'd like to see a comparison between the btu's of the fuel in one of those planes and some common missiles. I'd bet it's more like the btu's in a shock and awe style MOAB.
Burning fuel and high explosives are apples & oranges. A bomb under combustion doesn't linger and coat, it's a quick and extremely energetic blast and shockwave. Try finding some videos of bombs going off in Iraq...they look NOTHING like the Hollywood fireball, which usually is a visual effect caused by lighting off lots of gasoline. I think there's probably a more valid means of comparing the impact energy of the airplane and what a bomb would release, but in the tower collapses, you've got to factor in a double-whammy effect of a significant shock to the buildings structure at the moment of impact, and *then* the vertical dousing of fuel that was either on fire or soon to be.
That was my point! The massive amount of jet fuel and absense of insulating foam around the metal is what weakened the structure of the buildings and caused the collapse. They were built to withstand a fire but not one fueled by hundreds of thousands of gallons of kerosene.
Some here are suggesting that this is not possible, but it is absolutely what happened.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
| 
