Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

At close to 1,000 ft above SL, the wind speeds in NY on 9/11 would definitely be three times more than at ground level, so 3 x 14 = 42 mph sustained wind speeds (according to official records) and gusting at 18.4 x 3 mph = 55.2 mph at 1,000 ft above SL yup, you have wind speeds that fit into rainfalls calculated paradigms.

"Would definitely be" is a completely meaningless phrase coming from you. It simply means "I fervently believe" and it's bullshit.

You have simply invented an arbitrary multiplier of "3" to fit the number that someone else actually MADE UP.

If we are to believe that airliners crashed into those towers, their fuel tanks were only filled to half capacity 11489/2 = 5,744.5 gal that day because of the short runs and low passenger levels.

All three aircraft were going to either LA or San Francisco. "Short Runs" Yet ANOTHER example of you fabricating the facts to fit your theories.

It isn't unreasonable to suggest that those flights were almost certainly specifically chosen because of their higher fuel loads.

Flt 175 was a Boeing 767-200ER, with a range of around 4,000 miles and a fuel capacity of aprox 11,000 gal. roughly 49,500 litres. or 55 tons of kerosene.

Distance from Boston to Los Angeles is 4,800 kilometres (2,987 miles) and a flying time of about 6.5 hours aprox.

The plane uses around an average of 3,200 litres of fuel per hour, X 6.5hrs = 20,800 litres of fuel to fly from Boston to LA. aprox.

That's less than half the plane's fuel capacity, around a quarter of the weight of the loaded plane.

Why would an airliner with only one sixth of normal passenger numbers carry enough fuel to go from Boston to LA and back? It could have refueled at LA for the return leg to Boston.

Carrying half its fuel capacity 5,500 gallons (close to 25,000 litres) would give it a comfortable safety margin of nearly 5,000 litres kerosene for emergencies, nearly one and a half hours flying, more than as required by law.

So on such flights, airliners weigh up the cost to weight ratio and load up with only sufficient fuel for the trip, not for two trips.
Otherwise if it was carrying extra tonnage of fuel with such a low payload of passengers, the flight would have been uneconomical.

If the plane that flew into the South Tower was in fact UA Flt 175 ( capacity of 375 passengers and luggage) from Boston to LA, then all it had on board was 56 passengers and crew, (only one sixth of its payload capacity) and around 5,000 gallons of kerosene.

So, IF that was Flt 175, there would have only been 5,000 gallons of fuel maximum, to burn.

The aircraft certainly appeared to be a large one, but not the correct profile for a Boeing 767-200 ER.

It was likely a 767-200-X, a military version, its forward fuselage is longer than a 767-200 ER.

Oh fuck now he's an aeronautical engineer!



By the way fuckstick.

Ever heard of CARGO?!




More Truther bullshit, and cnuts like ENT just lap the shit up:

Claim: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories—specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.


FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

Arguing science with twats like ENT is like arguing with "intelligent designers" that men didn't ride Dinosaurs.



More science to cut through ENT's bullshit here:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Planes - Popular Mechanics

There's nothing really more to be said on this dogshit threat, ENT is going round in circles and talking about imaginary aircraft again. No matter what facts you put up, the little cultists cling to their beliefs and refuse to acknowledge anything but the half-truths and bullshit that support their delusions.

PM me when you've proven everything on either 911myths.com or Popular Mechanics using SCIENCE and EVIDENCE rather than "well the government got to them!". Otherwise this piece of shit thread belongs in the shithouse with it's proponents. It's not worth wasting any more time on.