IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags flight 93

Reply
Old 11th August 2020, 05:50 AM   #41
Pinch
Critical Thinker
 
Pinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 401
Re: fuel loads and afterburner. The F-14 Tomcat I flew back in the late 80s/early 90s had Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines. Full afterburner on those beasts burned 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Having only 16.5 k fuel internal and another approx 4 k in aux fuel tanks, theoretically we could be in full blower and exhaust our total fuel in 8-10minutes. Yeah, we’d be going the speed of heat but would be an aluminum glider at the end. Anytime I read about people saying “so-and-so jet can go Mach umptisquat at full afterburner totally ignore fuel management and mission effectiveness in those scenarios. Not feasible. Short sprints at full speed/full AB would work, but you have to have fuel when you arrive on target to complete your mission.
__________________
"There's this thing about being so "open minded" your brain falls out". --Unknown
Pinch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2020, 07:27 AM   #42
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
The main fault that CTs have is running their mouth(fingers) without putting their brain in gear.
They all "know" it was an inside government job so they believe anything/everything other CTs spout or just make up stories to fir their agenda.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2020, 09:34 AM   #43
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Pinch View Post
Re: fuel loads and afterburner. The F-14 Tomcat I flew back in the late 80s/early 90s had Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines. Full afterburner on those beasts burned 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Having only 16.5 k fuel internal and another approx 4 k in aux fuel tanks, theoretically we could be in full blower and exhaust our total fuel in 8-10minutes. Yeah, wed be going the speed of heat but would be an aluminum glider at the end. Anytime I read about people saying so-and-so jet can go Mach umptisquat at full afterburner totally ignore fuel management and mission effectiveness in those scenarios. Not feasible. Short sprints at full speed/full AB would work, but you have to have fuel when you arrive on target to complete your mission.
Thanks for the facts. My point was that even at balls to the walls speed, the timing wouldn't work out. I wasn't too worried about fuel load since reality long since left this conversation.

After all, it was Rodan, which I had proven in another thread.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2020, 03:37 AM   #44
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,472
Originally Posted by Pinch View Post
Re: fuel loads and afterburner. The F-14 Tomcat I flew back in the late 80s/early 90s had Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines. Full afterburner on those beasts burned 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Having only 16.5 k fuel internal and another approx 4 k in aux fuel tanks, theoretically we could be in full blower and exhaust our total fuel in 8-10minutes. Yeah, wed be going the speed of heat but would be an aluminum glider at the end. Anytime I read about people saying so-and-so jet can go Mach umptisquat at full afterburner totally ignore fuel management and mission effectiveness in those scenarios. Not feasible. Short sprints at full speed/full AB would work, but you have to have fuel when you arrive on target to complete your mission.
Point well made.

TBH, I don't believe I have seen anyone make that point before. Running on AB is a recipe for an unbelievably thirsty engine.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2020, 08:54 AM   #45
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,032
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Point well made.

TBH, I don't believe I have seen anyone make that point before. Running on AB is a recipe for an unbelievably thirsty engine.
The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is (roughly) proportional to the cube of velocity (v3) - thus, if you fly twice the speed, you need eight times the fuel per time interval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2020, 04:57 PM   #46
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,472
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is (roughly) proportional to the cube of velocity (v3) - thus, if you fly twice the speed, you need eight times the fuel per time interval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power
Sure. We all understand that.

But the CT fraternity seem to believe in...I don't know what.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2020, 05:28 PM   #47
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,130
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is (roughly) proportional to the cube of velocity (v3) - thus, if you fly twice the speed, you need eight times the fuel per time interval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power

I'm not an expert on aircraft engines by any means, but I think it's even worse than that, because the afterburners are not nearly as efficient at generating thrust as the basic turbofan assembly.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2020, 09:13 AM   #48
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
I'm not an expert on aircraft engines by any means, but I think it's even worse than that, because the afterburners are not nearly as efficient at generating thrust as the basic turbofan assembly.
Is you lack of expertise based on being a single prop plane and not a jet?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 09:05 AM   #49
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
So again...what is the point of shooting down United 93? What, exactly, does it prove in the 9/11 conspiracy theorist imagination?
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 09:10 AM   #50
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 24,338
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Is you lack of expertise based on being a single prop plane and not a jet?
A turbofan is a jet engine. The aircraft in question were (and are) fitted with turnofan engines.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 09:13 AM   #51
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
A turbofan is a jet engine. The aircraft in question were (and are) fitted with turnofan engines.
Well, wouldn't that shoot down his defense?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 09:19 AM   #52
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
So again...what is the point of shooting down United 93? What, exactly, does it prove in the 9/11 conspiracy theorist imagination?
Well, to me, a sane person, if they managed to get a fighter up there and armed and in a position to shoot it down, that would indicate they knew in advance as it takes some preparation.

Maybe it washes some of the blood of the hands of the actual perps, and onto the government.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 10:23 AM   #53
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,977
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Well, to me, a sane person, if they managed to get a fighter up there and armed and in a position to shoot it down, that would indicate they knew in advance as it takes some preparation.

Maybe it washes some of the blood of the hands of the actual perps, and onto the government.
Hmm. Yes. If this thing which did not happen had actually happened, it would be evidence the authorities had foreknowledge.

So the object of the exercise for cranks is not to consider why it could not realistically happen without foreknowledge. It is simply to stoke suspicion that it did in fact happen.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 10:29 AM   #54
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Well, to me, a sane person, if they managed to get a fighter up there and armed and in a position to shoot it down, that would indicate they knew in advance as it takes some preparation.

Maybe it washes some of the blood of the hands of the actual perps, and onto the government.
Wait, but wasn't NORAD told to "stand down" on 9/11, according to conspiracy theorists? How could the military then be prepared to shoot down a plane?
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 10:32 AM   #55
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,130
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Is you lack of expertise based on being a single prop plane and not a jet?

Ha. Took me a minute to get that.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

Last edited by SpitfireIX; 20th August 2020 at 10:34 AM.
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 10:36 AM   #56
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,130
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
A turbofan is a jet engine. The aircraft in question were (and are) fitted with turnofan engines.

Go back and reread Leftus's post. I think you misread it the way I initially did.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 11:00 AM   #57
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,334
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
The top speed for the F16 is roughly 1500 MPH. That's 25 miles a minute. 300 miles is 12 minutes. If we figure that they took off at 9:56 they would have arrived at 10:08. Since the flight crashed at 10:03, I doubt they could have gotten cannons on at 125 miles...
Unless flight 93 was expected to hover in one place, by the time the fighters got there, 93 would be somewhere else, moving at a rate of 500MPH. 1500-500 MPH would be the fastest the fighters could travel, relatively, or 1500+500, depending on direction vectors.

And with transponders disabled and their destination unknown, it would be harder to find out exactly where flight 93 was.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2020, 12:28 PM   #58
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Wait, but wasn't NORAD told to "stand down" on 9/11, according to conspiracy theorists? How could the military then be prepared to shoot down a plane?
Of course they were told to stand down by the evil corrupt Bush government with the inept VP Cheney leading the charge since the Pres. was reading stories (fiddling) to school children while the plan was executed.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2020, 12:27 PM   #59
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
 
Cheap Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
I believe after I falsely identified Delta 1989 as a hijack to NEADs I mentioned that NEADs should consider contacting other units such as Selfridge and Toledo, mind you that NEADs only officially can request First AF aircraft to launch and intercept, this would only be a request. I cant remember if I was talking to Dooley or someone else, NEADs mentioned how about Syracuse and Burlington, but I emphasized Selfridge and Toledo and the DC guard as well since we were shut down. No more planes would be coming from Boston. I based most of this on the Ghost AAL11 and the falsely identified DAL1989. I did not know about UAL93 at that moment. So I assume NEADs followed up and launched from Toledo and Selfridge. I believe the first time NEADs heard about UAL93 it was already in the ground. Now that didnt stop the tracking on the TSD for the next 20 minutes on a false track but there was no aircraft associated with that track.
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
- Albert Einstein
Cheap Shot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.