English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What is the difference here? Can anyone offer a rational explanation?

2006-08-15 06:07:35 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

You Bozos just won't open your eyes right?

2006-08-15 06:22:41 · update #1

MishMash, You know I do believe these bozos do know that the WTCs collapse was nothing to do with the Jet Fuel that would have evaporated at impact. The truth is too shocking for them to contemplate. The mind does have that effect. WAKE UP AMERICA.

2006-08-15 07:03:38 · update #2

25 answers

Man, all this BS about jet fuel. Did you all miss the giant fireballs that occurred directly after impact? Did you miss the columns of black smoke, indicating oxygen starved fires? Jet fuel...please, that did not bring the towers down.
As for the question, the B-25 Bomber is much smaller and hit at a much slower speed. Still, the effects should have been the same. I know where you are going with this and I totally agree.

2006-08-15 06:38:11 · answer #1 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 1 1

sure the world trade building was structured with an out side frame with lighter weight materials. it was originally designed to withstand the accidental impact of a 707 size airframe. the difference between accidental and intentional would be speed and fuel payload. (2) WWII plane traveling at perhaps 200 mph not 400+mph with a 1/4 the weight and 1/4 of the fuel load. 3...fire melts stuff and as you can see from the video when the top part collapsing impacting the still standing lower 3/4 of the building the bottom of the building crushed the same as crushing and aluminum can.

2006-08-15 06:33:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

For one thing, the plane that hit the ESB was smaller and carried less fuel than a modern jumbo jet. It was at the end of its flight and presumably not carrying much fuel by that point. The fire department was also able to get the fire under control relatively quickly because there were still working elevators, unlike in the WTC where they had to haul their equipment up the stairs while trying to get around the people coming down. In addition, the ESB crash occurred on a Saturday morning when fewer people were in the building, so rescue operations didn't require as much manpower.

2006-08-15 06:29:20 · answer #3 · answered by jersey girl 3 · 2 0

A propeller plane moves slower than a jet plane and carries less fuel than a jet plane. That is the rational explaination. The Crash in WWII was due to bad weather and the plane was not going full speed in contrast to intentional crashing of a jet on a clear day going at high speed.

2006-08-15 06:20:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Different methods of construction. The Empire State Building was "overbuilt"...made of materials much stronger than they had to be.

The WTC buildings were constructed of materials that were made of materials that were strong enough to withstand the normal wear and tear. There was a certain safety margin that was included in the materials that made up the two towers but no one expected a fully loaded aircraft to hit them.

Much of the materials that make up the framework of the Empire State Building are large I-beams and steel girders. Although there were a lot of girders and beams in the WTC much of it was made from steel reinforced concrete. The Empire State Building has the bulk of its framework on exterior walls. In the WTC there was a central core that made up the bulk of the supporting structure and the walls (while lending some support) were attached to the central core of the building.

The airplane that hit the Empire State Building was much smaller; the planes that hit the WTC towers were much, much heavier.

2006-08-15 06:20:03 · answer #5 · answered by Albannach 6 · 2 1

The WTC was made to sustain an impact from an airplane. The difference is that the size of the planes is totally different now that it was when the WTC was constructed.

2006-08-15 06:13:14 · answer #6 · answered by scott 3 · 1 1

no this crap...

the plane that crashed into the empire state building was a B-25, going 150-200 mph.

the planes that struct the towers were Boeing 757, carrying around 10,000 gallons of kerosene. they were flying at 500 mph.

Big difference

2006-08-15 07:46:49 · answer #7 · answered by Bill 2 · 0 0

The 9/11 plane carried a huge amount of fuel that basically melted the supporting steel girders. In addition the wieght and speed caused huge trauma to the structure.

WWII plane carried less fuel and wasn't heavy enough or fast enough to cause significant blunt force trauma.

2006-08-15 06:16:31 · answer #8 · answered by yepwellmaybe 3 · 2 1

The wtc planes were on their way to las vegas filled with gigantic amounts of fuel. WW2 planes dont carry very much fuel and arnt as big as 747s or wtvr the wtc planes were.

2006-08-15 06:15:08 · answer #9 · answered by help me!! 3 · 2 1

easy... structural differences & WWII plane was samller and had a LOT less fuel. The planes that hit the world trade center were huge jets filled with jet fuel.

2006-08-15 06:14:20 · answer #10 · answered by Sir Greggath 3 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers