Re: Could 9/11 Be A Conspiracy?

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:12:00 MST, Dude VanWinkle said:

> Take a look at some post 9/11 pentagon photos, look at the lawn, and
> tell me a fully fueled 747 flown by someone who had never even been in

Actually, unless it was set for a *long* flight, it wouldn't be fully fueled
at takeoff.  If you're flying 3,000 miles cross country, you don't take off
with 12,000 miles worth of fuel, just to haul 9,000 of it around.  You take
off with 4,000 miles worth of fuel just in case you get stuck in a holding
pattern at the destination.

Also, Flight 77 was a 757-200:

http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing-2/B757-5.jpg

a *much* smaller plane than a 747:

http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing/747-2.jpg (model 100)
http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing/747-400%20LINE-2.jpg (model 400)

A 757-200 maxes out at 255K pounds, compared to max 738K pounds for a 747-100
and  875K pounds for a -400.

Most notably, a 757-200 can take a *maximum* of 11,489 gallons of
fuel, much less than the 47,000+ gallons that even a 747-100 can carry
or the 67K gallons of a 747-400.

Although I'll grant you that since Flight 77 was going Dulles-LAX,
it was probably a bit over 2/3 full of fuel at takeoff (figuring the
Dulles-LAX being about 3,000 miles and a 757-200's max range of about 4500,
but it was probably flying light (only 58 passengers out of a capacity of
239).

http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack_757200.htm

Or phrased differently:

http://www.airchive.com/Memorabilia/Boeing/BOEING-5.jpg

A 747 is the one on the top.  What hit the Pentagon is 6th from the bottom.

> €ven if it wasnt a conspiracy, it worked out really well for the
> powers that be. Unlimited support for six years, billions of dollars

I didn't say it wasn't a conspiracy.  Even before we invaded Afghanistan,
and passed the Patriot Act, I told a co-worker:

"George II owed his dad for Iraq War I, he owed Cheney something to give
Halliburton, and he owed Ashcroft an excuse to pass the Patriot Act.  And isn't
it odd how the same names crop up in Al Quaeda as the CIA-financed 'Afghani freedom
fighters' from a decade ago?  Now what if they never left the CIA payroll....".

It's just an application of Occam's Razor - it's cheaper to hire somebody
to fly a *real* plane into the Pentagon than fake an attack.

Incidentally, if you look at footage of *any* major airliner crash, it's totally
amazing how much those things disintegrate on impact, because there *isn't* that
much structural integrity on them.  More integrity would mean more weight, and
more cost to fly - and the only time integrity *matters*, conditions are so
extreme that you couldn't make a plane that would survive it.  I am told
that when they did threat models of "jet plane impacts nuclear reactor containment
building", the impact could easily be treated as "impeller shaft of engine
hits building", because everything else would just flatten and crumple on
impact with any sizeable amount of concrete.

(And before you you say "but the planes got deep inside the WTC and Pentagon",
I'm going to point out that both of those buildings have *windows* - and outside
walls less than 2 foot thick...)

Attachment: _bin
Description:

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.