Loaded with 11,000 gallons of jet fuel,
Moving at 250 miles an hour...
Take down a building?
Does that make any sense?
Oh and did anyone see operation bite?
2007-04-16 06:34:32 · 14 answers · asked by Reise 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh... 500 mph...
Sorry I'm just a degenerate.
2007-04-16 06:39:25 · update #1
You must be referring to the Twin Towers. I can see from your questio you don't fully understand concepts of engineering.
Jet fuel burn at a much higher temprature than regular fuel, so structural trusses melt faster, especially over an area as big as an airplane. once the structural supprts melt and all that weight comes down gravity does the rest.
Of course if your one of those 9/11 inside job conspiracy theorists I suppose logic and reason are outside your capacity.
2007-04-16 06:48:52 · answer #1 · answered by evil_paul 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
in case you had actual accomplished your analyze, you will understand that the 767, like countless airliners at the instant in use, is an extremely risk-free airplane. risky planes don't have very long commercial lifetimes. in case you elect to benefit an occasion of an risky airplane, learn the early fashions of the De Havilland Comet, the 1st commercial jet airliner, which substitute into withdrawn from provider and redesigned after basically a quick time, because of the fact it had a tendency to blow up in flight. That substitute into 0.5 a century in the past, nonetheless, and on the instant's airliners do no longer even attain the production line until they're demonstrably very risk-free. All Boeing and Airbus airplane are risk-free.
2016-11-24 22:43:44 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Molten steel burned in the ruble of the WTC for weeks after 9/11 occurred. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. All three building fell far too quickly to have been caused by anything but demolitions. Go to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth web site for the real facts about the WTC demolitions on 9/11. The FBI failed to revise their list of Hijackers after it was proven that several of them were still alive and well. Nano thermite was also found in the samples of dust when studied by physics professors. In April 2009, the thermite-hypothesis gained more momentum when a study: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Please review the work of professor Steven E. Jones.
The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
The simple facts of temperatures:
* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Incidentally the WTC buildings were specifically designed to withstand impacts from 707 jet aircraft.
2013-11-22 09:32:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The buildings were only designed to withstand a boeing 707 travelling at around 300 mph with about 5k gallons of fuel.
So ummm larger jet, with lots more fuel, travelling at a much faster speed.
2007-04-16 06:47:19 · answer #4 · answered by sociald 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was going faster then 250 mph. That is it's landing speed. The terrorists had it at full throttle. Probably close to 500 mph.
That means a lot more force of impact.
2007-04-16 06:38:30 · answer #5 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you drove a gasoline tanker truck filled with gas into a building at 500 mph, what do you think would happen?
2007-04-16 06:44:31 · answer #6 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pretty funny right! and the same fools that believe that get chased by a 8 pound poodle and weigh 190. Big Planes can bring down big buildings and steel does melt.
2007-04-16 06:39:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I vote we put you in front of a Boeing 767. Come on down to Everett, I'll introduce you to some.
2007-04-16 06:38:16 · answer #8 · answered by Captain Moe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was more like 400mph.
Also, the heat produced by the burning fuel weakened the steel.
Stop buying into the conspiracy.
It was 19 muslims from saudi arabia that hijacked four airplanes. Period.
2007-04-16 06:39:52 · answer #9 · answered by Skyhawk 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't.. but the million tons of steel above the spot of impact and damage to structural integrity caused by a jet does.
2007-04-16 06:45:53 · answer #10 · answered by pip 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋