Infographic: 10,000 gallons of jet fuel next to the World Trade Center

submitted by Orangutan from (i.imgur.com)

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

It's always amusing when conspiracy theorists fail to get the basic facts straight. Flight 11 alone would have been carrying more fuel than that. It was a 767 headed for LA from Boston. Average burn for that trip with that plane would be around 18,000 lbs, so they would be carrying upwards of 20,000 lbs on takeoff, and at least 15,000 when they smashed into the trade center.

But even that aside, this whole premise is stupid. The massive amount of diesel fuel would have also lit fire to everything inside the buildings, which in the face of that amount of heat might as well be kindling. Eventually that heat was enough to soften the support beams to where the top chunk of the building dropped and started taking out the floors under it as it fell.

[–]PRSanon 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How would the upper floors falling ever take out the bottom ones? They're already holding the weight of the upper floors. Of course putting the weight in different places would screw stuff up, but it wouldn't result in a collapse that looks like the top of the building is practically in free fall.

What happened to WTC 7, which supposedly collapsed due to just a fucking fire?

Why are there humongous fires in skyscrapers that can burn away everything except the steel structural supports, yet we don't see anything like what happened to the twin towers or WTC 7, which both fell supposedly because of fire?

Why were media and officials so sure that it was going to fall? Fires never made buildings just fall before, and an airplane compared to such a huge building doesn't mean much.

Funny coincidence that Bush's little brother got a contract to handle security of the twin towers.

But, clearly, it can't be a conspiracy. They can't just go on TV and lie, can they?

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

How would the upper floors falling ever take out the bottom ones? They're already holding the weight of the upper floors.

How would jumping out of a 4th story window break my legs? They were holding my weight just fine before.

Seriously, the fact that you wrote the above statement in earnest believing that you were making a point shows that you lack a grasp of even basic physics.

[–]Although 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's always amusing when conspiracy theorists fail to get the basic facts straight.

It's always amusing when people who think they sound superior by using the slur, "conspiracy theorist" reveal they can't even understand basic maths.

Flight 11 alone would have been carrying more fuel than that.... Average burn for that trip with that plane would be around 18,000 lbs, so they would be carrying upwards of 20,000 lbs on takeoff.

11,000 gallons of jetfuel weighs about 77,000 lbs. You claim Flight 11 only took off with 20,000lbs of fuel and you somehow think 20,000 is more than 77,000!)

The massive amount of diesel fuel

Diesel fuel! LMAO! Jets burn kerosene, Einstein!

Your copypasta rant about the resulting fire is just another regurgitation of the claims made in 2008 by The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in charge of the official report which concluded fire was the explanation for the collapse.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth point out that the fire retardants used in the WTC meant fire could not have caused what actually happened.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

11,000 gallons of jetfuel weighs about 77,000 lbs. You claim Flight 11 only took off with 20,000lbs of fuel and you somehow think 20,000 is more than 77,000!

If you had been paying more attention, you might have caught the actual error. A claimed 20,000 lbs would not only be less fuel than was stated in the image, it wouldn't have been nearly enough to get the jet from Boston to LA. I just swapped gallons and lbs in my head without thinking about it. It was supposed to be 20,000 gallons, which was wrong, but for a different reason.

The numbers I found online for a 767-200 claimed United used about 16,000 gallons on an average trip between NYC and LA. Since Boston is slightly further, I estimated 18,000 and went from there. However, I was doing the math in my head last night, and I realized that works out to about 40MPG per passenger, when I know the figure for a jet like this should be in the 70+ range. Turns out that figure is for a round-trip flight, so I was off by a factor of 2. The actual number is closer to 10,000 gallons for Flight 11 alone.

Diesel fuel! LMAO! Jets burn kerosene, Einstein!

The fact that you wrote this "dunk" not knowing that diesel fuel and kerosene are the same thing gave me a good chuckle. Diesel fuel, kerosene, and A1 jet fuel are all basically the same chemically. You can pour A1, or straight kerosene, into your diesel's tank and it'll run, though for lubrication you'll also want to add a pint of 2-cycle oil to every 5 gallons of kerosene if you want to do that long-term.