For the Boeing expert, here is a photo showing structural detail of Boeing aluminum fuselage for a 747. Notice that all of those parts except the rivets, wires, wire ties, and screws/bolts are made of either plain or stamped 2024T3 sheet aluminum (which is the third most abundant metal on earth).
Hmm you just might have a point because a beer can would have just crumpled up and whatever went through the wtc didnt even get a dent. good point! So what do you think that tube thingy that went all the way through wtc2 was made of?
Really, are you really going to show the thickness of that skin on the same page where you can see the AP pop out the other side of the WTC in a video? Yeah, you are convincing people. FYI, the cone is even thinner.
1. A nose cone shaped object seen flying out of the other side of the building does not mean it was the nose cone. The fact that the nose cone was never found puts doubt in that it was the nose cone. 2. Take a beer can weighing 180,000 lbs and filled with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel and fire it into a building at 500 MPH. The energy generated by 180,000 lbs traveling at 500 MPH is equal to almost a half ton of TNT and that doesn't include the jet fuel. It doesn't matter if it is steel, aluminum or jello, the energy is the same. Water can cut through steel if it has enough velocity. 3. The fuel/air bomb is the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the airforce inventory. It works by using a small explosion to disperse the fuel into the air and then ignites the fuel/air mixture a few microseconds later. If enough fuel is used, the resulting explosion can be mistaken for a nuclear blast. A fuel tank ruptured by a terrific impact would disperse fuel in the same way. Add heat from friction and you'll have the same result.
What people are assuming is the fuselage is the the fuel that explodes right after that portion of the film that people claim is the nose of the plane. Think about it.
so someone planted a cbu then huh? I dont think so. I suppose people could agree with you if you stretch their imagination to the point of ridiculous.
I didn't realize a subject matter expert would need instruction. Read this and we will discuss. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
no that is not how a discussion board works. it is presumed that the quote is talked about, glad I could help.
Please do yourself a favor and pick up a text book on basic physics. Also I wasn't suggesting someone planted a cbu, I was suggesting that a ruptured fuel tank on a jet airplane traveling at 500 MPH could react like a fuel/air bomb.
Though I agree with you, it was contained somewhat in the building and not dispersed like a fuel air bomb would be. That would leave much of the fuel to burn in the building itself. The actual physical damage to the building was extensive and both buildings look like it was a core failure that brought them down with the fire giving the final push. Both had core damage on one side of the core which would have put tremendous pressure on the center of the core as it would have introduced a bending moment to the structure taking off pressure on the far side and all the weight in the middle of it, basically tripling the load on the center of the core. During the evacuation of the first tower, one of the hero's that did not make it out hinted over the radio that the center elevator shafts were collapsing and to stay away from them. During that time, the fires were spreading to the floors below the impact. You will also notice as the outer structure falls away in all of the pictures, there is not one floor attached to them. The reason for that is the floors were not welded to the outer structure but pinned. As the core collapsed, it pulled the floors away from the outer structure allowing it to fall away without any floor structure attached. They were the first types of buildings built that way of their kind and these collapses will generate different building techniques for any future buildings built like this, for one, if the floors to the outer structure had been welded it would have significantly increased resistance to failure my multiples.
well then why didnt it? if what you say is true it should have taken at minimum the whole top of the buildings off.
the earliest renditions fail to show any such thing. if any of these plane videos were real more than 25% of the fuel should have stayed outside and instantly burst into flames.
I was talking about what I quoted. You guessed that MIT's research amounts to a guess and there was no point to your post.
another of your failures. This article was completed prior to the public release of the FEMA/ASCE report The FEMA/ASCE failed to provide this information. Another source of inaccuracy in the determination of energy dissipated in failing the aircraft they guessed
You mean other than eye witnesses in the building and the stairwells that were obliterated in the core? You watch too much TV.
