Recent Posts

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Tom Bishop on February 19, 2024, 08:56:56 PM »
The problem with the Democrat's ability to find someone electable in the upcoming presidential election is directly related to the below.

https://www.wtnh.com/news/washington/dems-launch-new-hip-hop-task-force/

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on February 19, 2024, 08:56:49 PM »

Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."


So, "62,000 lb ........ that is less than 10,000".  Please explain.  Are you introducing gallons into this debate, when jet fuel is measured by mass, just to maintain your assertion that Mahogany is a liar? 

13
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by mahogany on February 19, 2024, 08:34:54 PM »
Both 767s were destined for LAX.  According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour.  Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact.  "Tens of thousands" in my book. 

Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms.  Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value. 

Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."


In my first post I forgot to add units of weight (pounds), as in tens of thousands of pounds of kerosene jet fuel. My bad.

I used to be a private pilot and so this was an honest miss but meant to add pounds.

The takeaway is still that both commercial airliners carried tens of thousands of pounds of fuel which is not a lie.   
14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on February 19, 2024, 08:29:03 PM »
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by Action80 on February 19, 2024, 08:07:36 PM »
Both 767s were destined for LAX.  According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour.  Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact.  "Tens of thousands" in my book. 

Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms.  Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value. 

Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."
16
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on February 19, 2024, 07:57:12 PM »
Both 767s were destined for LAX.  According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour.  Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact.  "Tens of thousands" in my book. 

Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms.  Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value. 

Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie? 
17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by Action80 on February 19, 2024, 07:38:38 PM »
As I pointed out a couple of years ago, the Corn Pop story has been corroborated. Intuitively you feel that it isn't true, but the evidence shows that it actually is. Not a great start if that's Exhibit A of Biden's supposed mental incompetence.
Wearing your hard hat backward is an important first step in challenging vicious men named "Corn Pop," on the mean streets of Wilmington, DE.
18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by Action80 on February 19, 2024, 07:25:17 PM »
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.


what specifically is the lie?
"Each carrying tens of thousands of jet full (sic)"

Once you admit this one, then you can deal with the lie of the "valid" NIST computer modeling.
19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« Last post by mahogany on February 19, 2024, 06:59:15 PM »
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.


what specifically is the lie?
20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« Last post by honk on February 19, 2024, 06:02:38 PM »
As I pointed out a couple of years ago, the Corn Pop story has been corroborated. Intuitively you feel that it isn't true, but the evidence shows that it actually is. Not a great start if that's Exhibit A of Biden's supposed mental incompetence.