Ok, first to willravel, this is his thread after all:
If I spill a gallon of gas, and a cup of gas in 2 identical houses (roughly equal in size to the amount that fueled the fires, relative to there size) it is true that the gallon will get the house burning faster, but each will reach raging inferno relatively quickly. In the towers, the fires were burning in full force after a short time, but the south tower collapsed first, because it had more weight above the points of impact, causing more force to be applied to the weakening girders and support. By the time the first towers collapse, they were both fully engulfed in flames, but due to the extra force applied from above the south tower fell first.
As for the amount of structural damage, actually the south tower got it worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W..._Locations.jpg
The main fuselage hit the corner of the support of the building, not the center, the corners provide much more support then the sides do.
Also check out this link, it’s a good explanation of the collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center
To host:
You are right you never said it was a CFM56-5b. you did post about the CFM56-3 model, and the 2 models are virtually identical in design. Here is a picture of the CFM56-3, and please note the small piping, much smaller than the picture you think is of a CFM56-3
http://www.albadawi.be/GRAPHIC/cfm56-3.jpg
As for it being a CF6, I was not as clear as I should have been, the engine in this photo
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/5474.jpg is a CF6, but it is a different engine then the one on Murray and Church St. The part found on Murray
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...cengines2.html is clearly different from the other photo of a CF6.
Here are the best 4 pictures of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D I could find:
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/image...taway_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_1_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_3_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_2_high.jpg
The photo of the engine on Murray Street is to badly damage to do a visual inspection and identify it; it does show similarities with the JT9D-7R4D. But the part is to mangled up; the only visible parts are mangled metal and some tubing, which all jet engines have in abundance. The photo is beyond recognition visually, especially with people with out any training like us. It’s like taking a wrecked car, putting it in a car crusher, burning it, taking a picture of it, and asking some one who does not know about cars, what year it was made in based off of the picture alone. An expert with hands on access to the car could do it, but no one else.
Your problem is you are looking at 2 different engines and thinking they are the same. The picture on Murray Street and the picture you keep showing are different.