I knew it was fake right away. Chuck's hair doesn't move unless he wants it to, and certainly not because of some pussy 500mph wind.

Afterburners of course don't work without substantial air compression. The air is compressed when the plane is travelling really fast, say 500mph. Even if an F-15 could control the vertical takeoff (no way in hell with no control surfaces or nose rockets), it would never have the thrust from a standstill.


Also, this has to be a dupe. It is ancient video...

1. at 500mph the plane travels 222M in 1 second (over 1/8 mile) the security cams wouldn't really capture anything moving that fast in detail.

2. Building 7 had 20% of it taken out by the towers/debris it was coming down..

3. seen vid of an implosion? 1 window popping out does not a n explosion make.

[quote]
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it - that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to that screen netting.
[/quote]

That was from Frank DeMartini, the on-site construction manager of the WTC. It's all in the video. Unfortunately we'll never know whether or not he was surprised by the collapse because he was in the North Tower helping people to evacuate when it fell.

You're right to point out, of course, that a plane travelling at 500mph has much more kinetic energy than one flying at 200mph (a little over 5 times as much, in fact). It's a little disingenuous to focus on this, however - it implies that the towers could resist a hit from the slower moving plane, but not the faster moving one, as if the slower plane would be stopped dead in its tracks! You're obviously a smart guy, Krupo, so I'm not going to suggest that this is what you believe - I'm just pointing out that kinetic energy isn't as important a factor as you might think.