The planes were fully-loaded trans-continental flights that had to be fully-loaded with fuel in order to make the flight.
You are simply mistaken. Fuel weighs a lot, and airplanes only take what they need, plus a little extra for emergencies. The fights in question were made daily, and the fuel consumption was well known. The range of the jets was far longer than the distance they had to fly, so they werten't fully loaded with fuel. Do you have a link to your statement that they were fully loaded on take off?? Here are link to my statement that they were not fully loaded.
Range of the 767 5200 Nautical miles. One nautical mile equals 1.150779448024 mile. 5200 x 1.150779448024 = 5984,mi as close as my calculator can take it. The distance between Boston and LA is less than 3000 miles. Fuel is heavy and they don't carry what they don't need. They had almost twice the range necessary, and wouldn't have been fully loaded. Here is a link to prove my point.
In the popular imagination, the jet fuel was the biggest factor in bringing down the towers. News reports emphasized that the transcontinental flights were fully loaded with fuel, while later government reports stated that the 767s were carrying about 10,000 of their 24,000-gallon capacity, and that most of the jet fuel likely burned off within five minutes. Thus, the jet fuel primarily served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.
911review.com
u said:
"I said jet fuel won't burn unless it is in mist or vapor form. The massive fireballs werew in mist form, and ignited by the collisions between building and plane. The jet fuel would had acted like a giant sloshing liquid and mostly been thrown from the building."
The problem with that is that it ignores physics, because even buying into your argument for a second, even the fuel that carried into the building from the crash would have caught fire and burned, unless we're talking about VAMPIRE FUEL, which only bursts into flames when it comes into contact with direct sunlight...
Your attempt at denigrating this conversation is noted. However, it is widely accepted that what fuel was left burned off within 5 minutes of impact, as noted in the link above. It is fuel--not wood--it would burn quickly if it were going to burn at all.
As has been said, it seems you tend to ignore facts that don't support your conspiracy theories, then you put up this patriotsquestion911 link like it's going to prove your point. "Patriots" may question 9/11, but intelligent people know how to sort facts from Alex Jones-inspired conspiracy.
I would say that you are ignoring facts--eyewitness accounts of firefighters, people who were there, and even video evidence that an explosion happened in the lobby---far below the impact point. Alex Jones had nothing to do with my link. It was to 700 engineers and architects---are they not intelligent people to you?
In my posts on this subject, I have stated facts ... here's how and why WTC 1 & 2 came down, and here's how and why WTC 7 came down a few hours later. I watched WTC 7 myself. If the conspiracy theories made any sense, I'd give them more credence ... but they don't.
Actually, you have posted your opinion---not facts---I have been the only one to post facts with links. You simply say what the government conspiracy says, and it doesn't hold water.
Sorry.
No comment
#194 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-09-11 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag
