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 Slap Nuts
So, all of the windows should have been blown out of the closer side?
How did this "funnel" the air out of a few windows in the middle of the opposing side?
Originally posted by gordonross
The simple answer is none. Jet fuel does not detonate in an atmospheric fireball, it deflagrates and does not produce the characteristic blast wave that is produced by a high explosive. The situation would be different in an enclosed space, but the behaviour would depend on the geometry of the space and the distribution of the jet fuel. An engine combustion chamber is one such example and pulse detonation would give an extreme example of the behaviour.
Gordon.
Originally posted by RR98
(by Slap Nuts, who no doubt got his name by [LOL -- this is definitely going to be edited out]), there are those who claim that the laws of gravity prove that the towers were brought down by demolition rather than the stated "official" reasons. BS!! A time-lapse viewing in real time of the towers' collapse supports the official version. Engineering and physics laws support the official version.
A lot of the most active members these days seem to be youngsters who can't even spell and have the most rudimentary concepts of grammar, if any at all. If I can decipher your ignorant replies I will do my best to respond via U2U's.
Originally posted by bsbray11
A lot of the most active members these days seem to be youngsters who can't even spell and have the most rudimentary concepts of grammar, if any at all. If I can decipher your ignorant replies I will do my best to respond via U2U's.
You sound more like someone who has just stepped out of the Bad Astronomy forums, than someone who should be posting on ATS.
Nonetheless, take the above into consideration, if physics interests you, or if you actually care what happened that day, and aren't simply playing out cynical ego roles on internet forums.
Originally posted by esdad71
www.architectureweek.com...://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
Watch these videos and I think it may answer some of your questions about buckling, outward bending and the snapping of column memebers.
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
IF the cargo holds, fuel tanks and seats are full then and ONLY then can a 767 have greater mass:
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Thanks for proving to us that a 767 that is actually carrying passengers and fuel has more mass than a 707 carrying passengers and fuel.
707: start mass: 148780kg, empty mass: 62370kg, cruise speed: 960kph
767: start mass: 136078kg, empty mass: 81230kg, cruise speed: 930kph
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well apparently you missed the part where the 767 has a higher max take off weight.
You also missed that your own figues put the empty mass of a 767 as a higher number than that for the 707.
So it looks like empty or full the 767 is larger and has more mass.