Besides that B-25 was flying at 125knots or so not nearly 600 (kinetic
energy goes up by the square of the mass and velocity). I do not
believe the fuel tanks even ruptured on the B25. Then too the exterior
walls of the ESB are not part of the stressed structure like they were
in the WTC. One thing I have noticed over the years is that conspiracy
theorists are not engineers.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Doug Franklin wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
1) The B-25 Mitchell is [...] not nearly as big as, say, a B-17
[...] and certainly dwarfed by the jetliners [...]
Correct.
2) The B-25 carries much much less fuel,
Correct. An L-1011 loaded for a flight from Atlanta to Frankfurt has
over 120,000 pounds (20,000 gallons) of fuel on board. I'm not sure
about newer jumbos. A B-25 carried about 4,000 pounds (670 gallons).
Fill the auxiliary tanks, and that expands to about 5,800 pounds (970
gallons). Get rid of the bomb load and add a 3,000 pound (515 gallon)
tank in the bomb bay, and 1,500 pounds (250 gallons) more in the waist
gun positions, and you're still looking at way under half of that L-1011
headed to Frankfurt.
3) Modern jetfuel is much more volatile than what would have been
used in the B-25,
I don't think this is true. AvGas like the Mitchell used was "hi test"
gasoline with an octane rating typically 100 or more. As I understand
it, modern jet fuel is much more similar to kerosene.
