how much additional fuel would you estimate was in the towers?
We sure do and the problem lies with Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Dave von Kleist, and anyone else who has been caught using manipulated images to bolster their arguments.
Well, there were large bunkers for power backup diesel generators, but I think they are referring to all the other flammables in a building. Office supplies, furniture, cleaning supplies, etc etc…all the stuff that burns in regular office fires. You do realize that buildings catch on fire sometimes, even those not hit by planes, yes?
what “hundreds” of videos actually show the south wall of the south tower being allegedly penetrated by an airliner?
How many of them can you count?
Read the first link.
and in addition to the assumption that there was sufficient fuel to do the job
there is also the assumption that the damage would be symmetrical, because if it were NOT symmetrical, how does anyone account for the complete and total destruction of the tower?
Paper, furniture, paneling, flooring, plastic and ghod knows what else…probably not even a tenth of the possible fuel sources available in a typical office building.
Too much for me, or perhaps anyone to calculate: The amount of paper in a 2001 office was incredible, you also have mutiple plastic objects like computers, printers & CRT monitors to burn. Plus carpeting & furniture (any fireproofing of them would be overwhelmed as they were meant to resist being ignited by cigarettes, not gallons of burning kerosene), etc. etc. etc.
Gravity.
1 video of 18 views.
Do a search on Youtube, there’s as many as you want to deny.
I used Magiver’s figures, which compared a B-25 weighing 35,000 lbs (15,875 kg) traveling at 272 mph (438 km/hr), to that of a Boeing 767 weighing 142,882 lbs (64,810 kg) and traveling at 559 mph (900 km/hr).
If you use RationalWiki’s figures, you indeed get 50.7 times and 81 times the kinetic energy, respectively.
The difference is that Magiver’s figures used max takeoff weight and max speed for the B-25. RationalWiki is apparently using a figure slightly more than the empty weight of a B-25, and a speed a bit slower than cruise speed. Since the B-25 was trying to land in the fog when the accident happened, I’d say that RationalWiki’s figures are likely more representative of the actual Empire State Building collision.
No, the damage would not have been symmetrical. So what? Have you ever played Jenga? Basically, once enough of the structural elements were compromised the structure would have started to collapse…kind of like this. In fact, the collapse wasn’t symmetrical…it started, unsurprisingly from where the impact was and the building fell to that side first (for a couple of microseconds). But with that much mass in motion, the rest failed and the structure came down…gravity is like that. You can actually see the collapse starting from where the impact was, and I’ve seen engineering videos in slow speeds that clearly shows this.
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm
here is a bit of research material …
If damage was symmetrical, how do you account for the cores not collapsing with the rest of the buildings and a significant portion of Two’s core being ejected south and crushing the Greek Orthodox church across the street?
Taking compressed videos and playing with the color levels until your see what you want is not research.
the important ones are the ones that actually show the south wall of the south tower, all of the others are of a very easily faked live nature.
Which of these videos shows the aircraft bouncing off? And how do you know that these videos aren’t staged?
Regards,
Shodan
"caught using manipulated images "
cite source please…
Is there any evidence that could be presented to you that could convince you? Is the idea you present falsifiable at all?
Click on the links.