432
Another angle:
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
432 points (98.6% liked)
HistoryPorn
4979 readers
132 users here now
If you would like to become a mod in this community, kindly PM the mod.
Relive the Past in Jaw-Dropping Detail!
HistoryPorn is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
- No genocide or atrocity denialism.
Pictures of old artifacts and museum pieces should go to History Artifacts
Illustrations and paintings should go to History Drawings
Related Communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If those numbers are correct, that's 40x the energy.
rough approximation, but I did double check the numbers.
ie we don't know the exact weight of the bomber, but that's its average laden weight, could be lighter without bombs
in 2001 the second plane hit faster than the first and I believe the first is guessed from footage but the second is from the black box?
40x the kinetic energy. Now consider the chemical energy stored in sufficient fuel for a coast to coast flight of that weight and speed.