Slashdot Mirror

This is absolute idiocy. Very frustrating. Here's what happens when airplanes hit reinforced concrete. (commercial airliner skins are around 0.048" thick. Metal skinned fighters from the 60's are not much different) http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall .html The concrete wins... The way the trade center and the pentagon are built are very different from each other. The Trade Centers had totally open floor plans and thin exterior walls. It's a skeleton of steel with walls of glass. The Pentagon is a brick. It's made of concentric shells of reinforced concrete walls. The airplanes hit the Trade Center and had huge expanses for the jet fuel to burn in. The heat from the fire was free to move up and down the hollow shafts in the building, heating up the metal structure to the point that it failed (NOTE: The steel didn't melt. Melting temp for steel is around 1500C, the WTC fire temp is estimated at around 750-800C --hot enough to weaken the metal, realign the crystal grain structure of the steel. See http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting %20the%20Evidence/annotations_2.htm for details). The Pentagon is made of concentric shells of THICK concrete walls. The airplane broke through the first layer and then couldn't really do much more damage. The fire was essentially contained in a concrete shell that couldn't go anywhere. Heating up a concrete wall doesn't cause failure nearly as fast as heating metal (stones don't melt remember...). Wait...did we mention that we make our government buildings tough to resist these kinds of attacks?...(White House and Congress are build to resist impact as well) BTW, airplane wreckage WAS found at the scene. Everywhere. In tiny little pieces. You just can't see them in the crappy grainy pictures that are released to the public. And by the way, aluminum melts at around 660C. Of course stuff is left unburned at the Pentagon. The fire was contained. And the last time I checked, steel is a much better conductor of heat that say, concrete. The huge exposure in the side of the Pentagon is largely from demolition work as part of the clean up!!! That airplane fuselage is only 12' 4" in diameter, so compared to the 70' building, it's pretty small. The 46' quoted includes the height when sitting on it's landing gear, and includes the height of the vertical tail. There are only 5 pictures being released because the aircraft was traveling at 350 mph and most security cameras are not running super high speed film!!! Idiots...this is making me angry.

(The mother is certain, the father always uncertain.)

If this wasn't the case Maury Povich would be out of business.

LK

http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall .html That is a video of a f-4 phantom being launched into a brick wall. Do you see any engines laying around?

Dave Chappelle already beat you to it...

http://jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/jerking_off_world_o f_warcraft.html

Only those which involve guaranteeing a continual source of piles of money large enough to roll around naked in.

i wonder where they stand on evolution/creation regarding monkey-man Ballmer...

Early Microsoft commercial w/ Ballmer