ISF Logo   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.
View Poll Results: Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?
Yes 20 13.07%
No 128 83.66%
Undecided 5 3.27%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 15th January 2015, 01:51 PM   #201
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
One of the reasons cited by Jango for a reinvestigation was the supposed suspicious nature of FF Palmer stating he had small fires on the 78th floor.
THAT particular item was addressed and yet despite being specifically asked if this is satisfactory, Jango has yet to reply.
Perhaps it was missed so I repost it again. I would appreciate an answer, no matter how short, to the question hilited at the end of the post.
Boy! Getting a reply on this one simple aspect of the events of the day it like pulling teeth,,,, from a dental patient who seemingly refuses to even sit back in the chair again.
jaydeehess 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 15th January 2015, 04:29 PM   #202
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,166
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Boy! Getting a reply on this one simple aspect of the events of the day it like pulling teeth,,,, from a dental patient who seemingly refuses to even sit back in the chair again.
It's the MO of the no-claimer to state any CT they wish in terms of vague suspicion that "it doesn't look right to me" while simultaneously disclaiming all responsibility for said claims in order to avoid any and all burden of proof which devolve from such non-claims. While I am not accusing our protagonist of such, it sure "looks like it to me". The very same rhetorical gambit is often exhibited in the "just JAQing off" ploy, which is so often seen among the CT crowd.
__________________
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 15th January 2015, 09:03 PM   #203
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
One of the reasons cited by Jango for a reinvestigation was the supposed suspicious nature of FF Palmer stating he had small fires on the 78th floor.
THAT particular item was addressed and yet despite being specifically asked if this is satisfactory, Jango has yet to reply.
Perhaps it was missed so I repost it again. I would appreciate an answer, no matter how short, to the question hilited at the end of the post.

The mix up, as of right now, is on what some are calling the impact zone I.e. not the 78th floor.

From the NYTimes:
Quote:
A lost tape of lost voices, ignored until recently by investigators studying the emergency response on Sept. 11, shows that firefighters climbed far higher into the south tower than practically anyone had realized. At least two men reached the crash zone on the 78th floor, where they went to the aid of grievously injured people trapped in a sprawl of destruction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/04/ny...pagewanted=all

It goes on to say:

Quote:
Although most elevators were knocked out of service, Chief Palmer found one that was working and took it to the 41st floor. At that point, he was halfway to the impact zone, which ran from the 78th to the 84th floors.
And this too:
Quote:
As he began climbing, he crossed paths with a handful of injured people who had been in the 78th floor Sky Lobby, where scores of office workers had been waiting for express elevators when the second plane hit. The tip of its left wing grazed the lobby, instantly killing most of a group variously estimated between 50 and 200 people.
One more:
Quote:
Ronald P. Bucca reached the impact zone on the 78th floor.
From USA Today:
Quote:
The jet crashed into the 78th through 84th floors of the south tower.
Quote:
In the south tower, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the 78th through 84th floors. The higher wing cut into the offices of Euro Brokers, a financial trading firm. The fuselage tore into Fuji Bank offices on the 79th through 82nd floors.
Quote:
The bottom wing of United Flight 175 ripped through the south tower's 78th floor elevator lobby.
Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...tcsurvival.htm


Do you see the disconnect I'm having with what you're saying and what, I'm sorry to say, more credible sources have said?


P.S. - Is there any way to get quote notifications on here?
Jango 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 15th January 2015, 09:13 PM   #204
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 486
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post


(excerpts)
You failed to show anything. You string quotes together, cry liars, and run off not proving it.

911 was a surprise attack, but not like Pearl Harbor; the Japanese brought their own planes.

911 was a surprise attack, unless you take the warning in the 90s as the "you knew it was coming as your use 20/20 hindsight and back in BS".
-snip-


Yes, you were stringing together disjointed BS quote mines which don't support anything close to a first narrative torn to shreds. You left out the meaning, and never made a conclusion past an opinion Myers lied; and failed to mention Myers; are you saving that one; google it up yet.

What was Myers lie, and how does it fit in your claims.

The other posters are much better than I at explaining and hitting bad pitches out of the park...
Myers' LIE
Bush's LIE
Condi's LIE
etc...

From June 2000 published by the U.S. dept of Justice--
Note the title and the targeted audience.
Shown as hard evidence ....

__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee

Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft

twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers
Fonebone 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 15th January 2015, 09:53 PM   #205
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The mix up, as of right now, is on what some are calling the impact zone I.e. not the 78th floor.

Do you see the disconnect I'm having with what you're saying and what, I'm sorry to say, more credible sources have said?
No, I do not. Probably because its exactly what I have been saying. You are going to have to explain the difference between what I said and what these reports say.

I am encouraged by the fact that you replied to my inquiry.
jaydeehess 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 15th January 2015, 10:00 PM   #206
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Myers' LIE
Bush's LIE
Condi's LIE
etc...

From June 2000 published by the U.S. dept of Justice--
Note the title and the targeted audience.
Shown as hard evidence ....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...88ea335d91.jpg
Yeah? A picture of a building that had already been the target oaf a large explosive. I get the feeling this is supposed to be a self evident bit of evidence. Pretend I don't get it and explain in detail.
jaydeehess 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 15th January 2015, 10:08 PM   #207
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
]Re: fire on the 78th floor of WTC2
Cobbled together from several posts above


Fire fighter Palmer calls from the 78th floor saying he has multiple injured and dead up there and that the fires on that floor are isolated, small and he needs two lines to put them out.

The 78th floor is the lowest fire involved floor in either building. Anyone reaching the 78th floor of WTC1 would have found no fires.

Flt175 impacted several floors, 78 being the one that the far end of the port wing sliced into. The 78th floor had little to no aviation fuel dumped onto it as a consequence of being hit by the outboard most part of the wing.

The vast majority of fuel was dumped onto the next few higher floors and that is where the greatest fires were. However, Palmer isn't going to send guys higher up until he at least has water supply so that he does not risk isolating his own people up there. It is hard enough getting manpower up there. In addition its going to make the most sense to fight this fire floor by floor, get 78's fire knocked down before proceeding to 79, etc.


The vast majority of fuel was dumped on floors in line with where the tanks on the planes were. That much needs little reasoning to determine. Those floors also took the brunt of physical damage as they are also in line with the greater mass and dense parts of the aircraft. Again not a lot of reasoning to manage to understand that.

More damage includes damage to perimeter floor portions, and core areas, which includes the most obvious paths, vertically, through the building, the damaged floors where maximum damage was done, again higher than 78, and the elevator shafts.
Any fuel going through shattered floor sections goes down one level and this occurs only nearer the perimeter. Inner flooring was intact. Fuel in elevator shafts goes where gravity sends it, down until it encounters either an elevator car or the bottom of the shaft. One shaft went all the way to the basement, others terminated at various floors. While 78 was one of those floors two things are possible; fuel did spill out from one shaft onto the 78th and is the source of at least one of the fires Palmer reports on; the elevator(s) from above that terminate at the 78th did not have fuel flow in it(them).

WRT fuel in the elevator shafts, depending on the amount of fuel and the duration of the fall, a substantial amount of it will aerosolize in the process, making it a substantial ignition risk.

Victims were trapped, as they themselves reported, on higher floors. Stairs were destroyed and fire was cutting people off. Does that sound like minimal damage, does that sound like minimal fire? Do the videos not show intense fires?(yes they do unless one specifically searches, dishonestly, for photos showing faces of the 200 foot by 200 foot structure, that show less fire at some periods). There really is no question whether or not there were large area fires above the 78th floor of WTC2

I believe that this coherently, understandably and unemotional explains the situation. This is an aspect of the fires often opined upon by the truthers side.
Jango expressed that this aspect of the fires gave him pause as being odd.
I must inquire again if this fully addresses that and makes it non-odd?
How is that different from USA Today or NYT
jaydeehess 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 15th January 2015, 10:33 PM   #208
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
How is that different from USA Today or NYT

This:
Quote:
The bottom wing of United Flight 175 ripped through the south tower's 78th floor elevator lobby.
Jango 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 15th January 2015, 10:34 PM   #209
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
No, I do not. Probably because its exactly what I have been saying. You are going to have to explain the difference between what I said and what these reports say.

I am encouraged by the fact that you replied to my inquiry.
I will respond to you if I know that you are communicating with me. Is there any way to get quote notifications, or do I have to wait for some phantom post count before that function is unlocked a la posting links?
Jango 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 January 2015, 01:13 AM   #210
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,171
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The mix up, as of right now, is on what some are calling the impact zone I.e. not the 78th floor.
Nobody's saying that the 78th floor wasn't part of the impact zone. What we're saying is that the 78th was the lowest floor in the impact zone. As the plane was in a bank at the time of impact, the only part of it that impacted the 78th floor was one wingtip, and that part of the wing was outboard of the fuel tank. So little or no fuel was dumped into the 78th floor, which, given the fact that floor 78 had a much smaller fuel load because it was a sky lobby rather than office space, makes it very likely that the fires on the 78th floor were much less intense than those on the floors nearer the centre of the impact zone.

For someone who says he wants answers, you could do a better job of paying attention to the ones you're given, rather than misrepresenting them and then claiming that they're lies. The latter behaviour is what we're used to from the "truthers" round here.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 16th January 2015, 01:38 AM   #211
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Nobody's saying that the 78th floor wasn't part of the impact zone. What we're saying is that the 78th was the lowest floor in the impact zone. As the plane was in a bank at the time of impact, the only part of it that impacted the 78th floor was one wingtip, and that part of the wing was outboard of the fuel tank. So little or no fuel was dumped into the 78th floor, which, given the fact that floor 78 had a much smaller fuel load because it was a sky lobby rather than office space, makes it very likely that the fires on the 78th floor were much less intense than those on the floors nearer the centre of the impact zone.
Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

Okay. If the fires weren't that bad on the 78th floor and they were an inferno above the 78th floor, what kind of conditions would that leave the 78th floor considering that the above floors reached the required temperatures to weaken the steel? I don't expect or even anticipate an exact answer, but if say, floor 79-84 were something like 1,500+, how hot would the 78th floor have been through processes like conduction?

This would be excellent opportunity to go over the WTC blueprints and design features. This is an area where there is a giant ? for me. Like, what was in-between the 78th and 79th floors?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
For someone who says he wants answers, you could do a better job of paying attention to the ones you're given, rather than misrepresenting them and then claiming that they're lies. The latter behaviour is what we're used to from the "truthers" round here.

Dave
1. No one has said it like you have to me yet I.e. you've answered it the best. Thank you.

2. Where have I claimed what you suggest? Quote please, sir.
Jango 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 January 2015, 02:02 AM   #212
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Myers' LIE
Bush's LIE
Condi's LIE
etc...

From June 2000 published by the U.S. dept of Justice--
Note the title and the targeted audience.
Shown as hard evidence ....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...88ea335d91.jpg
Yes, you call people liars. All of 911 truth is a lie. Why can't you see those lies. Wait, you made up the Bush lie, Condi's lie, and etc lie. You don't like them, so you call them liars. Why does your liar radar fail on 911 truth lies?
beachnut 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 January 2015, 07:17 AM   #213
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
]Re: fire on the 78th floor of WTC2
Cobbled together from several posts above

The 78th floor is the lowest fire involved floor in either building. Anyone reaching the 78th floor of WTC1 would have found no fires.
Flt175 impacted several floors, 78 being the one that the far end of the port wing sliced into. The 78th floor had little to no aviation fuel dumped onto it as a consequence of being hit by the outboard most part of the wing.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
How is that different from USA Today or NYT
Jango asks about where the impact was.
Quote:
Dave Rogers then says:
What we're saying is that the 78th was the lowest floor in the impact zone.
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.
.
Dave said the same thing I did but only NOW we are getting somewhere?

Where were you when I asked three times whether or not the replies had satisfied you? When you finally deign to respond you reply very non-specifically.

Did you not know that the plane that hit the south tower was in a steep bank when it hit? I fail to understand how anyone claiming to be interested and curious about the events of Sept 11/01 could not have seen the dozen or so videos of this aircraft crash.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th January 2015 at 07:47 AM.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 07:43 AM   #214
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Okay. If the fires weren't that bad on the 78th floor and they were an inferno above the 78th floor, what kind of conditions would that leave the 78th floor considering that the above floors reached the required temperatures to weaken the steel? I don't expect or even anticipate an exact answer, but if say, floor 79-84 were something like 1,500+, how hot would the 78th floor have been through processes like conduction?
Its not a binary situation. The 79th to 84th floors suffered greater damage nearer where the bulk of the aircraft hits. They suffer greater effect of liquid fuel accelerant on the floors where the fuel tanks were in line with the building. INITIAL fire on the 79th would likely be lesser than the the 80th. Given that the fuel tanks were within, and close to, the fuselage, one could expect the greatest effect of that fuel to be on the 81st floor. INITIAL fire on the 84th would be expected to be about the same as the 78th. The big difference between 78th and 84th would be that fire tends to move up a building so with infernos on the 80, 81, 82, one could expect greater fire progression upwards to 83, 84, 85 than down through 78.

Additionally, the jet fuel fires did not in themselves cause sufficient heating to weaken the structure. The jet fuel caused INITIAL wide are fires on several vertically adjacent floors which then involved the contents of the offices. The fires, over the course of the time between impact and collapse, were primarily office fires. The big difference between these events and so called normal office fires, is that usually a fire starts small, in one location, and builds and spreads over the course of several hours before it gets to the point where it would resemble the situation in the towers.

Quote:
1. No one has said it like you have to me yet I.e. you've answered it the best. Thank you..
????
I answered you, and then ASKED you if it was sufficient, three times before you replied with no specific request for more info.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th January 2015 at 07:48 AM.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 10:33 AM   #215
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Jango asks about where the impact was.



Dave said the same thing I did but only NOW we are getting somewhere?

Where were you when I asked three times whether or not the replies had satisfied you? When you finally deign to respond you reply very non-specifically.

Tell me about it...

Back on page three I gave Jango several pertinent links ( not once but twice) regarding his floor 78 misassumption.

Reply came there none.


(to be fair though, I was a little testy...)
Ape of Good Hope 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 January 2015, 11:58 AM   #216
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
Tell me about it...

Back on page three I gave Jango several pertinent links ( not once but twice) regarding his floor 78 misassumption.

Reply came there none.


(to be fair though, I was a little testy...)
Nor were you and I the only ones. Dave Rogers stated the same point a few times, that 78 was hit by the outer part of the left wing. That defines 78 as part of the impact zone, impact zone=those floors hit by any part of the aircraft. Not a hard concept to grasp. Jay Utah, and a few others also went through this. Only now, when Dave says it yet again does it get read with comprehension?

Initial fires ignited by jet fuel, not a hard concept to grasp.
Jet fuel being dumped on floors in line with the fuel tank's line of travel, not a hard concept to grasp.
More jet fuel in a particular area=greater extent of INITIAL fire on that floor
Flight 175 in an steep bank, obvious in several widely distributed videos, described in minute detail in the NIST reports, but seemingly an unknown fact to Jango.
WTC7 having also collapsed on 9/11. Here is a factoid that I will admit many did not know until later. Those people are the type that don't normally watch the news. They can't be since this was also widely reported on later in the day on at least the cable news channels.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th January 2015 at 12:01 PM.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 01:36 PM   #217
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Initial fires ignited by jet fuel, not a hard concept to grasp.
Jet fuel being dumped on floors in line with the fuel tank's line of travel, not a hard concept to grasp.
.
The tanks did not survive the impact... Surely they broke apart and the fuel with momentum continued to travel and with great force... until it encountered "stuff" and especially the rigid columns which would cause it to disburse. Imagine shooting a balloon at 400 mph into a bird cage. The balloon would shatter.. the cage wires ripped and bent and the fuel spread like a energetic spray from nozzle.

What didn't burn would pool and seek it's lowest level finding shafts to spill down into.
JSanderO 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 January 2015, 01:58 PM   #218
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Okay. If the fires weren't that bad on the 78th floor and they were an inferno above the 78th floor, what kind of conditions would that leave the 78th floor considering that the above floors reached the required temperatures to weaken the steel? I don't expect or even anticipate an exact answer, but if say, floor 79-84 were something like 1,500+, how hot would the 78th floor have been through processes like conduction?

This would be excellent opportunity to go over the WTC blueprints and design features. This is an area where there is a giant ? for me. Like, what was in-between the 78th and 79th floors?
You seem strangely reluctant to come out and say exactly what you think the problem(s) are, but I'm going to take a stab at your logic and say that it seems to be: Fire chief reaches 78th floor and states needs hoses for 2 small fires. 78th floor is neither an inferno nor an oven. Therefore 79th floor must not be an inferno either. Therefore suspicious.

There are many here who can address these questions, but I would just point out that these buildings were 208 feet X 208 feet, which is AN ACRE. A lot can be happening in an acre of space.

As for what was between the 78th and 79th floors, likely the same thing that was between most of the floors. Concrete slabs on metal decking, long-span bar joists, columns, air, carpet, tile, walls, people, office stuffs, windows. What big mystery is there in your mind?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 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 January 2015, 02:01 PM   #219
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The tanks did not survive the impact... Surely they broke apart and the fuel with momentum continued to travel and with great force... until it encountered "stuff" and especially the rigid columns which would cause it to disburse. Imagine shooting a balloon at 400 mph into a bird cage. The balloon would shatter.. the cage wires ripped and bent and the fuel spread like a energetic spray from nozzle.

What didn't burn would pool and seek it's lowest level finding shafts to spill down into.
Don't under estimate the damage the mass of fuel would do. Purdue even stated they were surprised at the damage the fuel mass alone would cause.

Think flood waters in a tidal wave or jumping off a high platform into water. At a certain point there is no difference between water and solid ground.

500 MPH is way above that threshold. The balloon is irrelevant.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 16th January 2015 at 02:04 PM.
DGM 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 January 2015, 02:05 PM   #220
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The tanks did not survive the impact... Surely they broke apart and the fuel with momentum continued to travel and with great force... until it encountered "stuff" and especially the rigid columns which would cause it to disburse. Imagine shooting a balloon at 400 mph into a bird cage. The balloon would shatter.. the cage wires ripped and bent and the fuel spread like a energetic spray from nozzle.

What didn't burn would pool and seek it's lowest level finding shafts to spill down into.
I thought it would be obvious that I meant the line of travel they were on while still inside the aircraft as it was about to impact the building.
However, yes, I do see that some might interpret my phrasing as meaning the trajectory of intact fuel tanks on the inside of the perimeter columns.
To be more succinct then:
The individual components of the aircraft were on a specific tarjectory as part of the intact aircraft. When the aircraft hit the perimeter columns two things were occurring; the aircraft was being torn apart by the steel columns ; and the columns were reacting to the transfer of energy from aircraft to column and were bending inwards, some to the point of complete failure. Some of those individual parts of the aircraft were the fuel tanks which iirc are in the fuselage belly, and in the close in, wider, more robust portions of the wings. As those fuel tanks tore apart their contents would be dispursed into the structure along the line of travel that the fuel was moving while still in the tanks. Yes JSO, like shooting a ballon at a birdcage. In fact not unlike sending a stream of water at a birdcage. However, note that the most dense parts of the aircraft are in the same vicinity as the tanks, wheels, engines, fuselage, and that the tanks are set back from much of that. Its very probable that some of the columns were already bent to breaking by the time the tanks get to the perimeter in which case they enter with less spray.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 02:09 PM   #221
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I thought it would be obvious that I meant the line of travel they were on while still inside the aircraft as it was about to impact the building.
However, yes, I do see that some might interpret my phrasing as meaning the trajectory of intact fuel tanks on the inside of the perimeter columns.
To be more succinct then:
The individual components of the aircraft were on a specific tarjectory as part of the intact aircraft. When the aircraft hit the perimeter columns two things were occurring; the aircraft was being torn apart by the steel columns ; and the columns were reacting to the transfer of energy from aircraft to column and were bending inwards, some to the point of complete failure. Some of those individual parts of the aircraft were the fuel tanks which iirc are in the fuselage belly, and in the close in, wider, more robust portions of the wings. As those fuel tanks tore apart their contents would be dispursed into the structure along the line of travel that the fuel was moving while still in the tanks. Yes JSO, like shooting a ballon at a birdcage. In fact not unlike sending a stream of water at a birdcage. However, note that the most dense parts of the aircraft are in the same vicinity as the tanks, wheels, engines, fuselage, and that the tanks are set back from much of that. Its very probable that some of the columns were already bent to breaking by the time the tanks get to the perimeter in which case they enter with less spray.
Don't think of the mass of fuel as a non-dense item. At the speed it was travelling it would act almost like a solid. Purdue detailed this at length.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 January 2015, 02:10 PM   #222
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
You seem strangely reluctant to come out and say exactly what you think the problem(s) are, but I'm going to take a stab at your logic and say that it seems to be: Fire chief reaches 78th floor and states needs hoses for 2 small fires. 78th floor is neither an inferno nor an oven. Therefore 79th floor must not be an inferno either. Therefore suspicious.
It would seem that they lack of inferno on the 78th floor is supposedly an indication of the lack of inferno on ANY floor.

Quote:
There are many here who can address these questions, but I would just point out that these buildings were 208 feet X 208 feet, which is AN ACRE. A lot can be happening in an acre of space.

As for what was between the 78th and 79th floors, likely the same thing that was between most of the floors. Concrete slabs on metal decking, long-span bar joists, columns, air, carpet, tile, walls, people, office stuffs, windows. What big mystery is there in your mind?
Yes, and while there were floor pans above that were crushed to some extent at the impact site, this is also the area at which the jet fuel still has the greatest velocity, just inside the perimeter. It stands to reason that the bulk of the fuel went further than the area of crushed floor pan on those floors that saw major floor pan damage.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 02:11 PM   #223
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
WTC7 having also collapsed on 9/11.

Here is a factoid that I will admit many did not know until later.

Those people are the type that don't normally watch the news.

They can't be since this was also widely reported on later in the day on at least the cable news channels.
They can't be what?

It is quite understandable that Jango and others misunderstand, when eagerness to bask in the spotlight leads to supposedly informative posts not being proofread.

The vast majority of adult Americans were unaware of the collapse of 7WTC on 9/11 until years later.

Even though it was almost half as large as the WTC Twin Towers, major media largely ignored the mysterious high speed collapse of 7WTC.

For the most part, after 9/11, only the Twin Towers received further media attention, while 7WTC's more mysterious collapse was quietly ignored by all, except the 9/11 Truth Community.

AE911 was largely responsible for bringing this event it to the public's attention.
Miragememories 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 January 2015, 02:14 PM   #224
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Don't think of the mass of fuel as a non-dense item. At the speed it was travelling it would act almost like a solid. Purdue detailed this at length.
I never said non-dense, I refered to the most dense parts, which would have the greatest capacity to cause structural damage.

Indeed though, anyone who has tried water skiing understands that hitting water at even the relatively slow speed of 30 mph is not like falling onto a pillow.
Its been pointed out many times that a high speed jet of water can be used to cut forms in steel plate.

The people of Japan know how ineffective water moving at a few tens of MPH is at destroying buildings.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th January 2015 at 02:40 PM.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 02:30 PM   #225
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
WTC7 having also collapsed on 9/11. Here is a factoid that I will admit many did not know until later. Those people are the type that don't normally watch the news. They can't be (the type that are in the habit of watching the news) since this was also widely reported on later in the day on at least the cable news channels.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
They can't be what?

It is quite understandable that Jango and others misunderstand, when eagerness to bask in the spotlight leads to supposedly informative posts not being proofread.

The vast majority of adult Americans were unaware of the collapse of 7WTC on 9/11 until years later.

Even though it was almost half as large as the WTC Twin Towers, major media largely ignored the mysterious high speed collapse of 7WTC.

For the most part, after 9/11, only the Twin Towers received further media attention, while 7WTC's more mysterious collapse was quietly ignored by all, except the 9/11 Truth Community.

Better? Its pretty obvious that what they can't be is what I referred to in the previous sentence.

How is it MM, that I, a Canadian like you, living in a small town in the Ontario northwest, managed to know, on the evening of Sept 11/01 that a third building had collapsed? Perhaps because I, unlike those "vast majority" you speak of, continued to have the TV on and paid attention to updates. In fact I watch both the Global national News and the local Global news every day(ok the 'local' in this case s Winnipeg). I also watch CBC Newsworld in the morning.

ETA: In fact I was not even at home on 9/11. I was with a work crew in an even smaller community. We were staying at a hotel and went for supper in the dining room , WHERE, the TV in the bar was on. Guess what the TV was showing MM? HINT: it wasn't re-runs of "Cheers"

Was the collapse of #7 played over and over again? Not as much as with the towers, no. Care to opine on why? I will! NO ONE DIED IN WTC 7, while 3000 people died in the tower collapses. The twins were the tallest office buildings in the world, and they collapsed !!.

You fail to see any significance in the fact that none of the other WTC structures , all destroyed, some in flames, were not shown over and over again. Why not? Because there was no drama there was there! Few, if any , died in WTC 3,4,5,6. No dramatic falling walls. In fact in all of the past 14 years those buildings have been all but utterly ignored by 911 debunkers, the media(both MSM and alternative) and 911 truthers.

Yes, the importance of the destruction in lower Manhattan is 1) The Twin Tower collapses, 2) The collapse of WTC7, 3) The other WTC and surrounding structures that were destroyed or damaged to the point of being unsafe for continued use (ie. but not limited to, The Fitterman and Banker's Trust buildings , the later was 39 storeys tall only 8 short of WTC 7).

Quote:
AE911 was largely responsible for bringing this event it to the public's attention.
Not to anyone that kept watching updates on Sept 11. AE911T did not even exist then.

The Fitterman building had to be torn down despite the fact that it would have been repairable. The continuing damage to it by being open to the elements was the final straw that doomed it. No deep dark conspiracy on that one MM?

Banker's Trust (that scary word "Bankers") was a 39 storey building that was never used again and was deconstructed. Netting enshrouded the building during the deconstruction. Netting! What were they hiding MM? No deep dark conspiracy there MM?

OMG! ,,, and a CHURCH, a church MM. St Nicholas Church was completely destroyed ON Sept 11/01!..... it just goes on and on..........

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th January 2015 at 03:04 PM.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 03:19 PM   #226
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,867
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
However, note that the most dense parts of the aircraft are in the same vicinity as the tanks, wheels, engines, fuselage, and that the tanks are set back from much of that. Its very probable that some of the columns were already bent to breaking by the time the tanks get to the perimeter in which case they enter with less spray.
Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage and this area had the most robust structure and mass. So this mass... solid and liquid dense as a solid would blast through the steel...and the fuel would disburse immediately... like a wave crashing against a sea wall... only shattering the wall! Fuel is probably similar density to water which is about one ton per cubic yard. That would do a lot of damage moving at 400+mph.
JSanderO 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 January 2015, 03:20 PM   #227
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

How is it MM, that I, a Canadian like you, living in a small town in the Ontario northwest, managed to know, on the evening of Sept 11/01 that a third building had collapsed? Perhaps because I, unlike those "vast majority" you speak of, continued to have the TV on and paid attention to updates. In fact I watch both the Global national News and the local Global news every day(ok the 'local' in this case s Winnipeg). I also watch CBC Newsworld in the morning......

....Was the collapse of #7 played over and over again? Not as much as with the towers, no. Care to opine on why? I will! NO ONE DIED IN WTC 7, while 3000 people died in the tower collapses. The twins were the tallest office buildings in the world, and they collapsed !!.

You fail to see any significance in the fact that none of the other WTC structures , all destroyed, some in flames, were not shown over and over again. Why not? Because there was no drama there was there! Few, if any , died in WTC 3,4,5,6. No dramatic falling walls. In fact in all of the past 14 years those buildings have been all but utterly ignored by 911 debunkers, the media(both MSM and alternative) and 911 truthers....
Actually, there was considerable drama in WTC 3, and significant loss of life (though not on the scale of WTC 1&2). AFAIK, though, it's only been the subject of one documentary:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


WTC 7 has actually gotten more attention than an event with real human drama! Mainly, I think, because it's more interesting from an engineering standpoint. But a little bit because of the shouts from the Truthers in the peanut gallery. It's their one accomplishment.
Redwood 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 January 2015, 03:28 PM   #228
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Actually, there was considerable drama in WTC 3, and significant loss of life (though not on the scale of WTC 1&2). AFAIK, though, it's only been the subject of one documentary:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


WTC 7 has actually gotten more attention than an event with real human drama! Mainly, I think, because it's more interesting from an engineering standpoint. But a little bit because of the shouts from the Truthers in the peanut gallery. It's their one accomplishment.
Well, there we go. Even at this late date I was unaware of the tragedy and drama of WTC 3. Quite probably MM, and AE911T were also unaware of this. Now that its getting some attention I am sure they will be on it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc3.html
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 03:30 PM   #229
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage and this area had the most robust structure and mass. So this mass... solid and liquid dense as a solid would blast through the steel...and the fuel would disburse immediately... like a wave crashing against a sea wall... only shattering the wall! Fuel is probably similar density to water which is about one ton per cubic yard. That would do a lot of damage moving at 400+mph.
Agreed. Thus my comparison to water skiing and water jet steel cutting.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 03:35 PM   #230
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage and this area had the most robust structure and mass. So this mass... solid and liquid dense as a solid would blast through the steel...and the fuel would disburse immediately... like a wave crashing against a sea wall... only shattering the wall! Fuel is probably similar density to water which is about one ton per cubic yard. That would do a lot of damage moving at 400+mph.
Actually much of the fuel mass is outside of the main body. This helps maintain CG and reduce wing load. This is why the center tank is usually the last to fill.



Long story short. The further outside, the less the wing root has to carry, thus saving weight.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 16th January 2015 at 03:43 PM.
DGM 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 January 2015, 03:47 PM   #231
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually much of the fuel mass is outside of the main body. This helps maintain CG and reduce wing load. This is why the center tank is usually the last to fill.

http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/...ammable767.jpg

Long story short. The further outside, the less the wing root has to carry, thus saving weight.
Makes sense.

The further away from the CL, the less mass of fuel though as well. Thus the 78th floor gets less fuel than the 80th.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 03:52 PM   #232
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Makes sense.

The further away from the CL, the less mass of fuel though as well. Thus the 78th floor gets less fuel than the 80th.
Yes.

I don't remember the exact loading but, rule of thumb is, load the wings first then the center. It adds stability and reduces stress on the aircraft. Remember flight 800 with the empty center tank?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 16th January 2015 at 03:53 PM.
DGM 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 January 2015, 03:54 PM   #233
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage...
Not all. Airliner fuel tanks extend substantially out into the wings. It's customary to keep the fuel in the centerline tanks during takeoff and landing. When convenient, the fuel management system pumps the fuel into the outboard wing tanks for cruise flight, emptying the centerline fuselage tanks if possible. If this had been done prior to the hijacking, it's unlikely the hijackers would have changed the tanking configuration. However, we know the flights hijacked to New York had heavy fuel loads and may have needed the use of the fuselage tanks even for cruise configuration.
JayUtah 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 16th January 2015, 03:55 PM   #234
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,166
A note of caution.

Frankly, I find any and all CT's about 911 farcical. Nevertheless, JSanderO is one of the very few who will engage in rational discourse. On that basis alone, I kinda like him, much as I may disagree with him.

JSanderO was the very first (and possibly only) 911 CT that I ever saw convinced by rational argument.

He has consistently rolled back when confronted with actual evidence and has even castigated truthers for their baloney, IIRC got a ban or two.

Give the guy a break. At least he is trying, and is that not the point?

To me he is steadily visiting the traditional butcher shop, and finding that if you slice the meat thinly enough, there will be no meat left. This is the thinking that should, in theory, be prevalent. But it is not.
__________________
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 January 2015, 04:01 PM   #235
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
A note of caution.

Frankly, I find any and all CT's about 911 farcical. Nevertheless, JSanderO is one of the very few who will engage in rational discourse. On that basis alone, I kinda like him, much as I may disagree with him.

JSanderO was the very first (and possibly only) 911 CT that I ever saw convinced by rational argument.

He has consistently rolled back when confronted with actual evidence and has even castigated truthers for their baloney, IIRC got a ban or two.

Give the guy a break. At least he is trying, and is that not the point?

To me he is steadily visiting the traditional butcher shop, and finding that if you slice the meat thinly enough, there will be no meat left. This is the thinking that should, in theory, be prevalent. But it is not.

While I have had disagreements with JSanderO, I have also largely agreed with him. I feel no ill will towards him either and find his posts thoughtful. I gots no prob wit 'im.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 04:07 PM   #236
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not all. Airliner fuel tanks extend substantially out into the wings. It's customary to keep the fuel in the centerline tanks during takeoff and landing. When convenient, the fuel management system pumps the fuel into the outboard wing tanks for cruise flight, emptying the centerline fuselage tanks if possible. If this had been done prior to the hijacking, it's unlikely the hijackers would have changed the tanking configuration. However, we know the flights hijacked to New York had heavy fuel loads and may have needed the use of the fuselage tanks even for cruise configuration.
I'd have to argue this with you. Keeping the mass centered on the airfoil(wing) will greatly reduce the load on the wing root. Rarely is fuel transferred unless there is an uneven fuel burn or problem concerning yaw control.(not including transfer from center to wing to replenish used on long flights)
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 16th January 2015 at 04:09 PM.
DGM 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 January 2015, 04:14 PM   #237
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually much of the fuel mass is outside of the main body.
You covered it well already. This is what happens when I leave my browser in Reply while I go do something else.

Quote:
This helps maintain CG and reduce wing load. This is why the center tank is usually the last to fill.
True, but the moment of inertia in the roll axis makes the airplane harder to handle with the fuel outboard, so the mass is typically pumped inboard for takeoff and landing, where snappy roll performance is needed. In cruise flight you generally need only gentle rolls, typically managed adroitly by the autopilot as you select new headings etc.

The fuel management system on a modern airliner really is a thing of beauty. It will indeed correct c-g issues by moving fuel from wing to wing.
JayUtah 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 16th January 2015, 04:20 PM   #238
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You covered it well already. This is what happens when I leave my browser in Reply while I go do something else.



True, but the moment of inertia in the roll axis makes the airplane harder to handle with the fuel outboard, so the mass is typically pumped inboard for takeoff and landing, where snappy roll performance is needed. In cruise flight you generally need only gentle rolls, typically managed adroitly by the autopilot as you select new headings etc.

The fuel management system on a modern airliner really is a thing of beauty. It will indeed correct c-g issues by moving fuel from wing to wing.
During roll to take off would it be better as well, to have the mass centered on the fuselage. No lift, so weight of wings is, at that time, on the wing root.

Eta; not that this would make a difference by the time of impact, unless fuel was not moved outboard.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th January 2015 at 04:23 PM.
jaydeehess 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 January 2015, 04:24 PM   #239
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You covered it well already. This is what happens when I leave my browser in Reply while I go do something else.



True, but the moment of inertia in the roll axis makes the airplane harder to handle with the fuel outboard, so the mass is typically pumped inboard for takeoff and landing, where snappy roll performance is needed. In cruise flight you generally need only gentle rolls, typically managed adroitly by the autopilot as you select new headings etc.

The fuel management system on a modern airliner really is a thing of beauty. It will indeed correct c-g issues by moving fuel from wing to wing.
You are correct but, NIST reported that all of the 10,000 gallons of fuel was distributed equally between the wing tanks. The aircraft didn't need the center tank fuel because it's well within range with the center tank empty.

Center tank is the last to fill and first to empty.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 January 2015, 05:26 PM   #240
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
The fuel was in the wing tanks, you use the wing tanks last, The wings are "stronger" with fuel in them. Think of the root of the wing having to lift the body, you want the extra fuel weight in the wings. The fuel is why the wing had the mass to displace shell panels.
The aircraft has extra flight control magic for low speed, like outboard ailerons in the 767, and spoilers, which work together to keep the roll rate going, so having heavy wings is not an issue for flight control in a heavy jet. I used my wing fuel last unless our mission was to carry fuel to a destination, fuel which was different for a mission bird; then we would save the special fuel, burn what we needed, finish with the wings as to keep as much mission fuel as possible.

Our burn sequence would have us burn our wings last for maximum airframe life. Unless mission dictated otherwise.

It looks like the center wing is out in the wings too. The 10,000 gallons on 911 would be in fuel wing tanks for the 767s, and in the 757, anything over 29,200 pounds of fuel would be in the center tank. There are rules when the wing tanks are not full, weight rules.
... max capacity of the left and right fuel tanks (757) - 14,600 lbs @ 6.7 lbs/gal (767) - 40,300 lbs

center tank fuel capacity (757) - 46,400 lbs @ 6.7 lbs/gal (767) - 79,700lbs

total aircraft fuel capacity (757) - 75,600 lbs @6.7 lbs/gal (767) - 160,300 lbs

Last edited by beachnut; 16th January 2015 at 06:15 PM.
beachnut 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 09:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.