I think that all of you all that are arguing the proposition need to go see what the movie says about your arguments, which it does address. I don't have time just now to relay the arguments, especially since I haven't finished watching it myself. If you still think the movie is wrong after that, fine. But none of you have watched it and you're arguing that it is wrong with someone who has listened to half of it. You are probably right that it's a half-baked theory, but all of you are currently arguing beside the point.
Dana On 8/23/06, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The World Trade Center was built to withstand the impact of the largest > plane envisioned at the time. I think it was about the size of a Boeing > 727. IIRC the planes that hit the towers were jumbo or super jumbo jets. > There is a big difference in mass and energy released upon impact. > > In reference, my parent's house is built to standards that can withstand the > impact of a plane, a singe engine Cessna. It would disappear if it got hit > with a jumbo jet. There is a difference in mass to consider there. > > > On 8/22/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ok well... what this movie says is that the building was in fact > > designed to withstand being hit by a plane, and that jet fuel does not > > burn hot enough to achieve those results. See the movie for more > > detail. I am not going to argue its merits either pro or con. > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:214063 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
