![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:27:11 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in : On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: Mark and Kim Smith wrote in : Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building were built before they start coming up with these dumb theories. Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion when the airplane impacted? Regards... No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen. Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not most, of the fuel burned up on the outside? Regards... No, the "huge fireball" would have consumed a large amount of jet fuel, but not all of it. It is nearly impossible to get "complete" combustion under those circumstances. Al Minyard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
turbo video | Peter Holm | Aerobatics | 13 | September 29th 04 11:31 PM |
Aviation Video: Another F-16 bites the dust | Iwan Bogels | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | September 21st 04 07:02 AM |
In-Flight Video | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 11 | May 16th 04 06:11 AM |
twin tail questions | Kevin Horton | Home Built | 12 | January 2nd 04 03:21 PM |
SR-71 Video | Dave Jones | Military Aviation | 0 | November 10th 03 08:00 PM |