Heh, when you phrase it like that - the B767.
After all, the weapons of the F-22 are incapable of hurting buildings ahead of the suicidal fighter, save for the peashooter gun that carries virtually no ammo even on an "operational" sortie.
It's not a matter of energy at all, then, but of footprint: the fighter creates a much narrower path of destruction through an urban area. And this matters whether it's about impacting high-rise buildings (the B767 spreads over a wider area after the fatal meeting with the first building) or plowing through a shacktown.
Of course, if somebody did get hold of a Raptor, deploying it against a building would be about the least fearsome thing the villain could achieve.
But the real point here is, weapons of sufficient mass destruction are easily available to the determined member of the Sixpack family,
and those being jealously guarded by the armed forces aren't really worth coveting.
if a pair of raptors had plowed into the world trade center towers on september eleventh 2001, both buildings (probably) would still be standing today
and those being jealously guarded by the armed forces aren't really worth coveting.
Yet another absurdity.
You're dreaming if you think transporters and/or replicators will ever be released to the public at all, to say nothing about being released without restrictions.
WTC 5 also wasn't hit by a plane, but the 4th through 9th floors partially collapsed.WTC Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all, yet down it went.
I call bullshit on that, it's the only time a tall building completely collapsed, but fire has resulted in partial collapses. And fire has structurally weakened tall building to the point where there was no option but to demolish them.If the official story is to be believed, it was the first and only time in history that a tall building has collapsed due primarily to fire.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.