Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10349)	3/12/2005 1:00:37 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

RE: "90% of the airplane should have ended up on the ground at the tower's foot. Should have is not necessarily did. " It would be kind of interesting to see some kind of engineering report on the design strength of the walls vs. what sort of energy would be required to penetrate them. I was thinking about the photo you posted showing the holes to be approximately where the body of the plane, and the two engines hit. From what I understand, the fuel tanks are in the wings of the planes. It crossed my mind that if the wings didn't actually penetrate the walls, except for the points where the engines are attached, how did so much fuel go inside the buildings? Wouldn't the fuel tanks have gone splat against the side of the buildings, like big water balloons, leaving the fuel spilling down the outside? There are a lot of places where an investigation beyond the scope of NIST (National Institute of Stupid Theories) could go a long way toward explaining the difference between what should have happened and what did happen.