Not a valid comparison. First, the difference in aircraft:
B-25 67' wingspan (roughly) 6' body diameter 33000 lbs fully loaded (27000 lbs loaded, without bombs) maximum 1000 gal high octane gasoline fuel supply maximum airspeed 275 mph, cruising airspeed (roughly) 240 mph 757 124' wingspan 12'+ body diameter 272000 lbs fully loaded 10000+ gal jet fuel supply maximum airspeed 600+ mph, cruising airspeed 520 mph As you can see, the Boeing has roughly twice the wingspan, twice the body diameter, and would have been travelling at least twice the velocity at impact; even going by the maximum load of the B-25 (33000 lbs) against an EXTREMELY conservative estimate of the Boeing (say, 200000 lbs), the Boeing would have had AT LEAST six times the mass at impact; and then you compare a maximum of 1000 gal of common (by modern standards) high octane gasoline against (okay, being generous for you, and saying the Boeing had only HALF of its fuel supply) five times the volume of jet fuel, which burns at much higher temperatures. This means that the kinetic energy at the time of impact for the 757 would have been AT LEAST twenty-four times that of the B-25D (doubling the velocity squares the kinetic energy... it would be even much more if the same rule, which is actually squaring the multiplier, applies to the mass-- if so, then it would be 144 times the kinetic energy). The thermal energy transfer of the 757's fuel supply would likewise have been much greater than that of the B-25. Now, the structure of the buildings were ALSO quite different. First, following construction technologies of the time, the steel frame of the Empire State Building, although not suitable for a complex such as the WTC, would have been much more massive (thus, much more capable of absorbing the impact stresses... so long as you keep the size of the building small enough)... this is because one tactic in permitting larger buildings to be constructed is to construct the frames from lighter (even if somewhat stronger... for structural load purposes) materials. Second, the face of the Empire State Building was constructed primarily of granite. Although this increases the mass of the building (placing much more load on the frame, which would prohibit the construction of a significantly larger building using the same technique), it also adds somewhat to the structural support network (the granite itself being somewhat load bearing. In addition, the granite would have been much better at absorbing the impact energies than the glass facade of the WTC... even if it provided NO structural support in its own right. The key to the collapse of the WTC is in the catastrophic failure of its structural support system... beneath a heavy load. Once that load began to drop, thus increasing momentum, there was no stopping it. The frame of the WTC was never designed to handle that mass once it was in motion. Also, if the Boeings had hit much closer to the top of the WTC, as the bomber had hit close to the top of the primary structure of the Empire State Building, the towers probably would not have fallen. Fugly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh Laughin ......... http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_facts_esbnews_mar1996.cfm?CFID=14220&CFTOKEN=1408 Empire State Building : Official Internet Site From high atop the Empire State Building, above the 86th floor ... When the bomber hit, its fuel tanks exploded, sending flames racing across the 79th floor ... Extensive Damage Reported Damage to the building and the surrounding area was extensive. An 18-by-20 foot hole was gouged by the B-25, and one of the plane's engines plowed through the building, emerging on the 33rd Street side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. Upon impact, windows shattered, and glass fell to the street. When the bomber hit, its fuel tanks exploded, sending flames racing across the 79th floor in all directions. According to Althea S. Lethbridge, a secretary for a trading company on the 72nd floor, 'Everything shook. (At the window), we saw flames below and above us. It was scary; we didn't know how fireproof the building was.' Ahhh, so close and yet so far ........ You do realize that um NEVER before has a steel building collapsed due to fire, and NEVER since. The ONLY times it is 'supposed' to have happened is on 911. Doesn't that alone tell you something? And may I remind you that it is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for a structure to fall AT FREE FALL SPEED without aid from explosive charges. SO, they just suspended the laws of nature for a lil while on 911 did they?? Just one other lil problem for ya is Building 7 ...um which no plane hit, yet still 'fell' (again at freefall speed) before the day was out. --- In [email protected], Edward Abboud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How much jet fuel was spilled into it, and did it withstand getting slammed into at high speed in the upper part of the tower.... > > ...nope, no match to 911. > > Fugly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Man obviously you did not read the whole thing ..... you missed this > bit hey ..... > > 'The World Financial Center in Shanghai bravely remains standing after > fires gutted its top floors'.... > > Gutted! Go see the pictures and then ask your oh so relevant questions > mate. --------------------------------- Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
