9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 10:29 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  You are now claiming to have quoted what they said. If you posted quotes then you should have not trouble posting the links that you got the quotes from.

psik

Had you simply Googled their names, it would be the first link.

But, here you go, lazybones.

ROFL

That old crap from 2001? LOL I have seen it dozens of times.

What does this mean?

Quote:While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/011...-0112.html

Was the amount of fuel in Litres or Gallons?

Now sources say 10,000 gallons. That is less than 38,000 litres.

So you use a source that can't even get the fuel correct. Not even be clear about the units it is using.

If you are going to claim something is a quote then you should provide the link.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 12:56 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Was the amount of fuel in Litres or Gallons?

Now sources say 10,000 gallons. That is less than 38,000 litres.

So you use a source that can't even get the fuel correct. Not even be clear about the units it is using.

If you are going to claim something is a quote then you should provide the link.

psik

New Jersey to San Francisco. NYC to Los Angeles, California

10,000 gallons. I asked my friend who's a pilot and he replied "LMAO"

So please try again. Or maybe just google how much fuel a 767 holds.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
16-03-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 12:43 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  You are using two different terms, LEVELS and FLOORS. Each LEVEL includes a FLOOR.
Are you taking the word 'floor' to mean that part of the level you walk on?

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 03:52 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
90,000L seems pretty reasonable for a plane more than halfway through its route. 10k, not so much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
[Image: 9d1b6e843f2fd5fbc39d5c25edcf1a.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
16-03-2015, 04:22 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 03:58 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
[Image: 9d1b6e843f2fd5fbc39d5c25edcf1a.jpg]

Oh wow you're right!

It was a conspiracy man. The government brought it down to get all the stuff left behind from rich people 80 years later.

Dayum.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
17-03-2015, 10:06 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 03:52 PM)natachan Wrote:  90,000L seems pretty reasonable for a plane more than halfway through its route. 10k, not so much.

This is great. People too dumb to look up the specs of the plane and realize that airliners do not take off with much more fuel than necessary to reach their destinations. Airlines do not fly fuel around the country for nothing and have planes land with a lot of unnecessary fuel that might explode in the case of a crash.

It has long been acknowledged that it was about 10,000 gallons in each plane on impact into the towers.

Quote:In addition to severing numerous load-bearing columns on the perimeter and inflicting other structural damage, the resulting explosions in each tower ignited 10,000 US gallons (38,000 L) of jet fuel along with office contents. Jet fuel from the impact traveled down at least one elevator shaft and exploded on the 78th floor of the North Tower, as well as in the main lobby.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of...ade_Center

The link is provided with the quote.

90,000 L is the maximum capacity of the plane which is what it would take for a flight across the Pacific, not across the United States.

People who can believe idiotic crap do not need to check facts.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 03:46 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 12:43 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  You are using two different terms, LEVELS and FLOORS. Each LEVEL includes a FLOOR.
Are you taking the word 'floor' to mean that part of the level you walk on?

Much of the discussion of how the towers could collapse revolves around the tube-in-tube design which made the huge floor space outside the core possible. I have found it necessary to be semantically distinct when talking about floors versus levels.

I get the impression that some people are deliberately ambiguous. No one admits that of course.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:25 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-03-2015 10:06 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 03:52 PM)natachan Wrote:  90,000L seems pretty reasonable for a plane more than halfway through its route. 10k, not so much.

This is great. People too dumb to look up the specs of the plane and realize that airliners do not take off with much more fuel than necessary to reach their destinations. Airlines do not fly fuel around the country for nothing and have planes land with a lot of unnecessary fuel that might explode in the case of a crash.

Actually no, it's not safe. No pilot would take off, going fair distance, without more than enough fuel to safely reach their destination, if not planes would routinely run out of gas if they're forced to remain in the air longer.

Also, incidents involving times where the landing gear fails, usually require those planes to remain in air sometimes for hours while they try to burn off excess fuel.

Regardless of that, all four of these planes had left their airports with the idea they would be traveling across the country, but instead made a far shorter trip than was intended.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(17-03-2015 11:25 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(17-03-2015 10:06 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  This is great. People too dumb to look up the specs of the plane and realize that airliners do not take off with much more fuel than necessary to reach their destinations. Airlines do not fly fuel around the country for nothing and have planes land with a lot of unnecessary fuel that might explode in the case of a crash.
Actually no, it's not safe. No pilot would take off, going fair distance, without more than enough fuel to safely reach their destination, if not planes would routinely run out of gas if they're forced to remain in the air longer.

Also, incidents involving times where the landing gear fails, usually require those planes to remain in air sometimes for hours while they try to burn off excess fuel.

Regardless of that, all four of these planes had left their airports with the idea they would be traveling across the country, but instead made a far shorter trip than was intended.

Can you read?

I said:
Quote: do not take off with much more fuel than necessary to reach their destinations.

What do you think MUCH MORE means? Is 10% more than necessary to reach the destination a sufficient safety factor?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: