Quote from Thunderdog:
The distance between Boston and Los Angeles is almost as far as from Boston to Portugal. I don't think that qualifies as a "hop." Why are you apparently engaging in the same type of misinformation as those who you are pointing your finger at? I am not looking to engage in a debate on a matter about which I am fairly uninformed, but why are you embellishing?
If you admit being uninformed, how can you possibly make similar accusations of me about a knowledge set you know little about?
You engage in the exact same type of baseless supposition you accuse me of. Except I am right. And you are wrong.
I am going to prove this through simple math and media reports.
Look.
Airliners Involved: Flight 11 and Flight 175
Flight 11 Airliner model: 767-200 ER (extended range)
Flight 175 Airliner model: 767-200 ER (extended range)
Flight Plan of #11: Boston to LA
Flight Plan of #175: Boston to LA
With me so far? Same planes, same origin, same destination.
767-200 ER Max Range: 12,200 km (TRANSPACIFIC)
767-200 ER Max Fuel Capacity: 23,980 gallons
Distance between Boston and LA ---- 4300 KM
Now. Airliners only fill their tanks with enough fuel to safely arrive at their destination. This is common sense and common knowledge. If you don't believe me, look it up.
So, lets start crunching numbers:
boston to la --- 4300 KM
divided by max range 12,200KM
= 35%
Therefore, Boston to LA encompasses a distance of 35% of the 767-200ERs' max range and therefore, max fuel capacity at cruising speed.
Agreed?
But now we need to factor in additional fuel for takeoff, wind compensation and holding pattern requirements. Lets give it a generous 15%:
35% x 1.15 = 40.25% (of max range fuel requirement).
Lets not forget to tack on the industry standard 10%+ emergency fuel reserve.
40.25% x 1.1 = 44.275% (of max range fuel requirement).
Now.
44.275% x max fuel capacity (23,980 gallons) = 10,620 Gallons.
But we're not even done yet.
Why?
Because you still need to factor in both WTC flights were in air - burning fuel - for roughly 45 mins before they hit the towers.
Let refer to the WashingtonTimes timeline for specific numbers, shall we?
Flight 11 takeoff - 7:59 a.m
Flight 11 impact - 8:46 a.m
Flight 175 takeoff - 8:14 a.m
Flight 175 impact - 9:02 a.m
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html
Now, you've got to subtract 45 mins of fuel from your 10,620 gallon figure considering Boston to LA is a ~6 hr flight.
That will put you WELL BELOW 10,000 gallons
And probably much closer to the 8500 gallons stated by Miles Obrien from CNN here:
"The captain likely planned for a five-hour flight, so there was roughly 8,500 gallons of jet fuel in its three tanks."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/13/se.23.html
Certainly within the ballpark of the 10,000 gallons quoted by UK's Telegraph here:
"If that had been done, Flight 175 would probably have been shot down before it could deliver its deadly cargo of 10,000 gallons of fuel into the World Trade Centre's south tower."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/13/whij13.xml
The old adage is true here. You can lead a horse to water.....
Look at 95% of the media reports: 'the jetliners were BRIMMING with fuel', 'the flights tanks were *topped up* for the cross country flight'.
TOTAL BULLSHIT!! The ERs capacity is built for TRANSPACIFIC flights (12,000KM).
Boston to LA is ONE THIRD that. And either WTC flight wasn't even half full!!
Take for instance the debunking article that Bronks posted that was supposedly gonna shred my argument into confetti:
"The terrorists certainly made sure they hijacked planes which had plenty of fuel on board. A Boeing 767 at the start of a long haul flight would be carrying around 24,000 gallons of fuel."
Get the picture yet??
There is something very wrong here.
The media is not doing its homework
about 911. Period.
There is no simple fact checking going on.
What is being promulgated as 'the truth' is nothing more than gross distortion and lies whose only creditability rests in the Publics unwillingness to question it.
Look at Bronks (no offense intended here). He posts an article that is full GROSS exaggerations and outright lies. contradicted by survivor accounts, common knowledge and Government reports themselves!!
Why does Bronks believe it?
Because perception determines reality.
Major media is the lense through which the VAST majority of Americans rely on for their perception of world events.
If that lense is cracked, scratched, or obscured by layers of filth, so to will your perception of the world be.
Unless you step outside that paradigm and do your own research, collect your own facts and perform your own analysis, you will remain a slave to the framed reality the media decides to show you.
Why is media selling you lies? There are lots of reasons. But at most levels, the media is just like you:
Brainwashed and a phoney Patriot.
A phoney Patriot is someone who conflates love of country with love of Government - which conveniently demands the rejection of grave doubts concerning Government integrity from acceptance into ones awareness.
Consciously, most 'good Americans' will not allow themselves to even contemplate their Government is capable of such horror.
This is what Phoney Patriotism does - creates false maps of reality by cordoning off avenues of thought that are simply 'not allowed'.
The media is no less vulnerable to brainwashing as you are. So every fact they collect, every witness they interview and every op-ed piece written, is unconsciously sculpted to harmoniously fit with the 'truth' as told by the Leaders.
This is called group think. And the more people that buy into these 'myths' the more credible they become. Until, they are just 'the truth'.
And by the way, you owe me an apology for making the accusation I embellished my figures. Clearly, I did not.
