The New Pearl Harbor

Hi Ned,
I have a friend who is in the airforce, and durring training they were thought that if they needed to disable, but not destroy weapons they could burn them with jet fuel. It would melt out the soft metal and leave the frame of the weapon relatively intact. The towers collapsing from burning jet fuel seems a bit suspicious. I'm not big on the whole conspiracy thing, but it seemed like almost an over-effort was made to show how the towers could fall right after 9/11. Does anyone else remember the constant bombardment of TV documentaries in the months that followed 9/11 that explained how the jet fuel would fall through the building warping and weakening the structural integrity of the towers until the fell? Anyway, my point is that due to his airforce training my friend has become rathe skeptical of jet fuel's ability to take down the towers.Brad

I wish I knew holmes. Like I said, I'm not big on the whole cinspiracy thing, and my airforce buddy is deployed to Qatar right now. But I will ask him what he thinks. I was just throwing it out there that yes jet fuel burns. But after several hours of burning it doesn't even really warp guns. I believe his exact statement to me was "As shown the towers shouldn't have come down, the jet fuel shouldn't burn that fast." I asked what else was going on, he told me "I'm not sure, but it seems like an important question to ask." So yeah, just my friend's $.02.Brad

Yeah, I understand. But on your list of things that need to be explained, how is the weight of the tower relevent when the planes struck so high? Just in my own observation, if this was a structural integrity issue, it would seem like part of the tower would fall over, but from the news broadcasts that I watched; the towers looked much more like implosions. Does anyone have any information on the physics of this?Brad