See, this is what is supposed to happen when a plane hits a building. The plane is destroyed, the wreckage smolders, the building stands.
Now, if a building was damaged enough from a plane crash one would at least expect it to topple over rather than fall perfectly straight down in a neat pile, as neat as a planned implosion, sorry, "terrorist attack," could be.
I'm not arguing for or against what may have happened at the world trade center.
But think of the scale. I'd have to have a stat comparison sheet. Comparing the two scenarios. Meaning I'd have to know details like Weight. Size. Fuel capacity, how much fuel was loaded into the plane at the time. Angle of impact. Et cetera to even begin to analyze whether or not the two instances are even comparable
Seems like the scale is way off.
Also they were two completely different buildings, some cheap ass apartment building versus a state-of-the-art building designed to stand up through the toughest conditions.
if i run a bicycle into your house whats gonna happen? yeah, thats right, about nothing.....if i run an M1A1 Abrams tank through the same house, what will happen then.......oh yeah, total destruction
same case here. it was a little tiny bug smasher plane that hit a huge building, thats like a bee hiting your windshield, of course it won't damage it
this plane was very small, has a small fuel supply, oh and its fuel source is 110 octane gasoline, not jet fuel, so its a colder fire
You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan
(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)
So, you're saying the fire from the fuel wasn't hot enough to damage the structure? Well, the jet fuel on those airliners was rated to burn at a much lower heat then the failure point of the structural supports of the WTC yet they "failed."
be careful guys, a certain mod is gonna come in here and lock this any minute now. But I agree with Zeke. The plane crashed and ther was wreckage. In the other case, where the much larger planes crashed, there was no wreckage even tho there should have been tons. Kinda funny if you ask me. But i'm not gonna get into this right now.
Gasoline burns hotter in open air than kerosine (Jet Fuel). That's why you DO NOT put gasoline into a kerosine heater, you'll have big problems. That's also one of the reasons kerosine is used. Turbine engines can be tuned to run on just about anything, kerosine is one of the safest fuels to carry and store.
This is apples to oranges though. The aircraft in question is just far too small to be considered comparable.
WTC 1 and 2 were not brought down by a jet fuel fire. That is agreed on by all experts. Those who say a fire caused the collapse use carpet, paper files, computer equipment and office furnature as their high temp. excuse. The problem I see with that is the 1975 fire in WTC 6 that nearly engulfed the entire building, burned for hours and did not cause collapse. The fire started on the 11th floor and spread to floors 9 through 14, and was fueled by office equipment and carpet, curtains etc. The WTC complex had no sprinkler system at that time and therefore the fire was out of control for quite some time before firefighters were able to contain it. It burned for 3
-New York Times Feb 14th 1975 p. 41
PAX
