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?
It seems jet fuel is measured by more than just mass.
"The cost of fueling your private jet can vary significantly. For example, on May 11, 2022, the IATA per gallon price was $4.82 in North America, $4.01 in Europe, and $3.55 in Asia. At Boston's Hanscomb Field Jet A was selling between $9.79 and $13.38 per gallon. In Oklahoma City it was as low as $7.05 per gallon."
But no. mahogany clarified he meant pounds.
So, if he meant pounds, he meant pounds. He didn't write that.
He also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling.
So, three things.
1. In an earlier post, you conflated my accidentally not adding units of measure (pounds) to my "tens of thousands of kerosene jet fuel" comment as being a lie. I think you know that it was an honest miss on my part (that I forgot to add pounds) and yet you feel the need to inject emotion into the debate by then calling me a liar. Everyone makes typo's and written errors -- just because I accidentally omitted the word gallons from a sentence doesn't mean I am hiding some deep truth or dark sinister secret. If you want to have decent spirited debate, you need to try and leave your emotions at the door. You could have just asked me something like: I think you may have forgotten to add a unit of measure. Can you clarify what that may have been... and then move on.
2. You then say in your above post that "He (I) also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling." From this statement, you act as though I work at NIST and I performed the computer modeling at NIST. If you want answers about NIST's model, go ask them, I don't work there. I also didn't work on Dr. Hulsey's computer model either and so I can't speak for his model either (although you can ask Dr. Hulsey and the two Chinese PhD students that he did mention worked on it).
3. I watched the entre video that you posted. Here are my own takeaways.
- Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist. The discussion is already going to have the flavor of conspiracy-ism. No surprise.
- I was happy to see Dr. Hulsey stick to talking about his model at the beginning of the video, but then I became disheartened when he too started pushing conspiracy theories vs. sticking to just the data. He was also asked some direct questions but his answers were very weak. Here are some examples:
> (JD - Jimmy Dore): "wasn't fuel to the fire aided by office furniture?" (DH - Dr. Hulsey): "not so much".
> (DH): conspiracy theory of "no people in the planes, done by remote"
> (DH): conspiracy theory about the Oklahoma City bombing having another bomber
> (JD): talks about the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being a pretext to war. (DH continuously shaking his head in agreement).
> (DH): waning and waxing about the fact that hopefully nothing happens to him since he did the simulation and goes on that Dick Cheney is aware he did the simulation. He then says hopefully nothing happens to him and it was all for the people and that he is a Christian. Me - on the show I think he's just enjoying the moment and feels compelled to talk in a sanctimonious kind of way.
- Dr. Hulsey talks about how he found it strange or odd that a Fire Marshall on 9/11 said to a bunch of people: "this building (WTC 7) is coming down shortly." Could it be that because both twin towers collapsed that said Fire Marshall was worried about the same possible occurrence for WTC 7? I wouldn't expect two large sky-scraper buildings to collapse only hundreds of feet away from adjacent buildings (like WTC 7) only to have fire crews tell everyone that it's OK to stay in those buildings and go back to work. The fire crews were likely telling everyone around to get out of ALL adjacent buildings. I was surprised that the Dr. didn't consider this obvious possibility.
- Dr. Hulsey talks about how he found it strange or odd that the two jetliners would have brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2 given that the original building engineers designed the buildings to prevent jets from going through it. Need I remind everyone of what people said about the Titanic before it sank.
- Neither Jimmy Dore nor Dr. Hulsey asked a question I would have asked which is: "if you believe that pyrotechnic explosions caused the buildings to come down, than why weren't said explosions or puffs of pyrotechnic smoke visible as are visible in building demolitions." I was disappointed that no one asked this question. One the one hand, the building fell onto it's own footprint (like a demolition) and on the other hand there were no visible pyrotechnic explosions (unlike a demolition).
Show Posts
.