Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
I’m not really sure where your going with this, this seems to be more of a conspiracy theory that the plans that hit were not the planes that hit, please keep this out of this thread, tilted paranoia is where you want to be.
|
Unless you are disputing the authenticity of the photo, and I would think that you would need to document such a dispute, how does the jet engine core debris photo differ from any of the links that willravel has posted? My point is that there is legitimate photo evidence that the airliner represented by authorities as flight 175, threw off a jet engine core, after impacting WTC tower #2, that landed on a Manhattan street corner, and is obviously from a much smaller aircraft. I think that is material to a discussion like this one. The photo evidence is that the engine core debris found on Murray St. comes from a much smaller engine, a CFM56, than this, a PW4000 767 airliner engine:
http://www.volvo.com/volvoaero/globa...000/PW4000.htm
<img src="http://www.volvo.com/NR/rdonlyres/0EE37C86-7EA9-4123-9AC5-68562AE5A3E0/0/335x150PW4000.jpg">
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
host as is often the case your link doesn't correspond with your own text. Your link refers to the idea that the WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a 707 they should be able to survive the impact of a 767. Ironicly they DID survive the impact, but not the heat so the whole point is moot.
It of course has nothing to do with what you said other than it was even a SMALLER plane that hit the wtc, which again has nothing to do with your link. This of course would require collaberation by the major airlines, all their ground crew, the flight traffic controllers, and we won't even get into what happened to the real 757's or how crazy that idea is.
I'm sorry uber but lots of bad math and bad assumptions does not a politics thread make, if there was a tiltled mania it would belong there, and not here, but lets PRETEND we have some integrity in the politics forum.
|
Ustwo, the crux of my post was to counter this statement in Dilbert's post which directly preceded mine....and I think that willravel does an admirable job of countering your fire damage related comments. As is so often the case, compare the content of what you're "bringing" to the discussion, compared to the "hard work" that others demonstrate. Give us something to think about; we already have vigilant mods to referee.
Quote:
|
They were designed to take the impact of just about any plane that existed, when they were built, and then Boeing made a bigger plane. When you scale something up linearly, the mass increases by a larger ratio, if you double the size, you increase the mass by 8 times. A lot more weight going just as fast, the building was designed to survive a moderate plane crash, not a 767.
|