Another angle:

  • AJ1@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    either that or they don’t make jet fuel like they used to

    in before “um, actually, the B-25 was a propeller-driven aircraft and therefore obviously did not use jet fuel”

    • Kimano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean that and a b25 weighs like 40k lbs and a 767 weighs like 400k lbs, and flies twice as fast.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Very very different crashes.

      The planes that hit the twin towers were bigger, going faster, and had more fuel.

      The twin towers themselves were also built with a different skyscraper design at well that used fewer steel beams. I don’t remember what the names of the skyscraper design types were but I remember a 9-11 history channel program going into it.

      • NoFuckingWaynado@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I may be wrong but I recall the twin towers had a central spine that was the load bearing component like a tree or something. Older buildings had a frame and load bearing exterior with a soft, gooey center.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          I remember it being explained as the twin towers “hung” somehow, so the central spine makes sense.

          The older buildings were basically just steel beams like you see in cartoons. Lots and lots and lots of steel basically in cubes from what I recall. So there was just a lot more to catch the load. In some sense they were overbuilt.