It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: corblimeyguvnor
a reply to: TsukiLunar
Even so, still nothing sheared off the 737's on 9/11 so my argument still stands
There were no 737's on 9/11. Just B767 and 757'sedit on 22-2-2015 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: Guenter
A jet is in essence nothing bot an over-sized beer can with wings at a speed of 500mph. No matter what the mass and speed of this thing is, the material the jet is built of is less dense than the material the WTC was built of. And none of the jets hit the towers right dead center bulls eye! So it is again an irregular damage which then would result in an irregular collapse. And after all the WTC were designed for the very fact that aircraft could impact! After all the Empire State got hit in 45 or 46 with a B-25 bomber! Buildings collapse due to fire and impact damage but they ONLY collapse in their own footprints if "helped" with a bit of a controlled demolition.
Jet fuel burns in "open air" at just a bit over 1,000C which is not enough to "melt" steel. So even with the jets ramming it they should have collapsed irregular or partially. That is what i am saying. Not more and not less. You do not get an almost free-fall in it's own foot print collapse just because of a plane hit. So no matter what you throw at any building it will NOT collapse free-fall into its own footprint.