Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[DGM]

I thought it would be obvious that I meant the line of travel they were on while still inside the aircraft as it was about to impact the building.
However, yes, I do see that some might interpret my phrasing as meaning the trajectory of intact fuel tanks on the inside of the perimeter columns.
To be more succinct then:
The individual components of the aircraft were on a specific tarjectory as part of the intact aircraft. When the aircraft hit the perimeter columns two things were occurring; the aircraft was being torn apart by the steel columns ; and the columns were reacting to the transfer of energy from aircraft to column and were bending inwards, some to the point of complete failure. Some of those individual parts of the aircraft were the fuel tanks which iirc are in the fuselage belly, and in the close in, wider, more robust portions of the wings. As those fuel tanks tore apart their contents would be dispursed into the structure along the line of travel that the fuel was moving while still in the tanks. Yes JSO, like shooting a ballon at a birdcage. In fact not unlike sending a stream of water at a birdcage. However, note that the most dense parts of the aircraft are in the same vicinity as the tanks, wheels, engines, fuselage, and that the tanks are set back from much of that. Its very probable that some of the columns were already bent to breaking by the time the tanks get to the perimeter in which case they enter with less spray.

Don't think of the mass of fuel as a non-dense item. At the speed it was travelling it would act almost like a solid. Purdue detailed this at length.

 

[jaydeehess]

You seem strangely reluctant to come out and say exactly what you think the problem(s) are, but I'm going to take a stab at your logic and say that it seems to be: Fire chief reaches 78th floor and states needs hoses for 2 small fires. 78th floor is neither an inferno nor an oven. Therefore 79th floor must not be an inferno either. Therefore suspicious.

It would seem that they lack of inferno on the 78th floor is supposedly an indication of the lack of inferno on ANY floor.

There are many here who can address these questions, but I would just point out that these buildings were 208 feet X 208 feet, which is AN ACRE. A lot can be happening in an acre of space.

As for what was between the 78th and 79th floors, likely the same thing that was between most of the floors. Concrete slabs on metal decking, long-span bar joists, columns, air, carpet, tile, walls, people, office stuffs, windows. What big mystery is there in your mind?

Yes, and while there were floor pans above that were crushed to some extent at the impact site, this is also the area at which the jet fuel still has the greatest velocity, just inside the perimeter. It stands to reason that the bulk of the fuel went further than the area of crushed floor pan on those floors that saw major floor pan damage.

 

[Miragememories]

WTC7 having also collapsed on 9/11.

Here is a factoid that I will admit many did not know until later.

Those people are the type that don't normally watch the news.

They can't be since this was also widely reported on later in the day on at least the cable news channels.

They can't be what?

It is quite understandable that Jango and others misunderstand, when eagerness to bask in the spotlight leads to supposedly informative posts not being proofread.

The vast majority of adult Americans were unaware of the collapse of 7WTC on 9/11 until years later.

Even though it was almost half as large as the WTC Twin Towers, major media largely ignored the mysterious high speed collapse of 7WTC.

For the most part, after 9/11, only the Twin Towers received further media attention, while 7WTC's more mysterious collapse was quietly ignored by all, except the 9/11 Truth Community.

AE911 was largely responsible for bringing this event it to the public's attention.

 

[jaydeehess]

Don't think of the mass of fuel as a non-dense item. At the speed it was travelling it would act almost like a solid. Purdue detailed this at length.

I never said non-dense, I refered to the most dense parts, which would have the greatest capacity to cause structural damage.

Indeed though, anyone who has tried water skiing understands that hitting water at even the relatively slow speed of 30 mph is not like falling onto a pillow.
Its been pointed out many times that a high speed jet of water can be used to cut forms in steel plate.

The people of Japan know how ineffective water moving at a few tens of MPH is at destroying buildings.

 

[jaydeehess]

WTC7 having also collapsed on 9/11. Here is a factoid that I will admit many did not know until later. Those people are the type that don't normally watch the news. They can't be (the type that are in the habit of watching the news) since this was also widely reported on later in the day on at least the cable news channels.

They can't be what?

It is quite understandable that Jango and others misunderstand, when eagerness to bask in the spotlight leads to supposedly informative posts not being proofread.

The vast majority of adult Americans were unaware of the collapse of 7WTC on 9/11 until years later.

Even though it was almost half as large as the WTC Twin Towers, major media largely ignored the mysterious high speed collapse of 7WTC.

For the most part, after 9/11, only the Twin Towers received further media attention, while 7WTC's more mysterious collapse was quietly ignored by all, except the 9/11 Truth Community.

Better? Its pretty obvious that what they can't be is what I referred to in the previous sentence.

How is it MM, that I, a Canadian like you, living in a small town in the Ontario northwest, managed to know, on the evening of Sept 11/01 that a third building had collapsed? Perhaps because I, unlike those "vast majority" you speak of, continued to have the TV on and paid attention to updates. In fact I watch both the Global national News and the local Global news every day(ok the 'local' in this case s Winnipeg). I also watch CBC Newsworld in the morning.

ETA: In fact I was not even at home on 9/11. I was with a work crew in an even smaller community. We were staying at a hotel and went for supper in the dining room , WHERE, the TV in the bar was on. Guess what the TV was showing MM? HINT: it wasn't re-runs of "Cheers"

Was the collapse of #7 played over and over again? Not as much as with the towers, no. Care to opine on why? I will! NO ONE DIED IN WTC 7, while 3000 people died in the tower collapses. The twins were the tallest office buildings in the world, and they collapsed !!.

You fail to see any significance in the fact that none of the other WTC structures , all destroyed, some in flames, were not shown over and over again. Why not? Because there was no drama there was there! Few, if any , died in WTC 3,4,5,6. No dramatic falling walls. In fact in all of the past 14 years those buildings have been all but utterly ignored by 911 debunkers, the media(both MSM and alternative) and 911 truthers.

Yes, the importance of the destruction in lower Manhattan is 1) The Twin Tower collapses, 2) The collapse of WTC7, 3) The other WTC and surrounding structures that were destroyed or damaged to the point of being unsafe for continued use (ie. but not limited to, The Fitterman and Banker's Trust buildings , the later was 39 storeys tall only 8 short of WTC 7).

AE911 was largely responsible for bringing this event it to the public's attention.

Not to anyone that kept watching updates on Sept 11. AE911T did not even exist then.

The Fitterman building had to be torn down despite the fact that it would have been repairable. The continuing damage to it by being open to the elements was the final straw that doomed it. No deep dark conspiracy on that one MM?

Banker's Trust (that scary word "Bankers") was a 39 storey building that was never used again and was deconstructed. Netting enshrouded the building during the deconstruction. Netting! What were they hiding MM? No deep dark conspiracy there MM?

OMG! ,,, and a CHURCH, a church MM. St Nicholas Church was completely destroyed ON Sept 11/01!..... it just goes on and on..........

 

[JSanderO]

However, note that the most dense parts of the aircraft are in the same vicinity as the tanks, wheels, engines, fuselage, and that the tanks are set back from much of that. Its very probable that some of the columns were already bent to breaking by the time the tanks get to the perimeter in which case they enter with less spray.

Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage and this area had the most robust structure and mass. So this mass... solid and liquid dense as a solid would blast through the steel...and the fuel would disburse immediately... like a wave crashing against a sea wall... only shattering the wall! Fuel is probably similar density to water which is about one ton per cubic yard. That would do a lot of damage moving at 400+mph.

 

[Redwood]

How is it MM, that I, a Canadian like you, living in a small town in the Ontario northwest, managed to know, on the evening of Sept 11/01 that a third building had collapsed? Perhaps because I, unlike those "vast majority" you speak of, continued to have the TV on and paid attention to updates. In fact I watch both the Global national News and the local Global news every day(ok the 'local' in this case s Winnipeg). I also watch CBC Newsworld in the morning......

....Was the collapse of #7 played over and over again? Not as much as with the towers, no. Care to opine on why? I will! NO ONE DIED IN WTC 7, while 3000 people died in the tower collapses. The twins were the tallest office buildings in the world, and they collapsed !!.

You fail to see any significance in the fact that none of the other WTC structures , all destroyed, some in flames, were not shown over and over again. Why not? Because there was no drama there was there! Few, if any , died in WTC 3,4,5,6. No dramatic falling walls. In fact in all of the past 14 years those buildings have been all but utterly ignored by 911 debunkers, the media(both MSM and alternative) and 911 truthers....

Actually, there was considerable drama in WTC 3, and significant loss of life (though not on the scale of WTC 1&2). AFAIK, though, it's only been the subject of one documentary:



WTC 7 has actually gotten more attention than an event with real human drama! Mainly, I think, because it's more interesting from an engineering standpoint. But a little bit because of the shouts from the Truthers in the peanut gallery. It's their one accomplishment.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually, there was considerable drama in WTC 3, and significant loss of life (though not on the scale of WTC 1&2). AFAIK, though, it's only been the subject of one documentary:



WTC 7 has actually gotten more attention than an event with real human drama! Mainly, I think, because it's more interesting from an engineering standpoint. But a little bit because of the shouts from the Truthers in the peanut gallery. It's their one accomplishment.

Well, there we go. Even at this late date I was unaware of the tragedy and drama of WTC 3. Quite probably MM, and AE911T were also unaware of this. Now that its getting some attention I am sure they will be on it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc3.html

 

[jaydeehess]

Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage and this area had the most robust structure and mass. So this mass... solid and liquid dense as a solid would blast through the steel...and the fuel would disburse immediately... like a wave crashing against a sea wall... only shattering the wall! Fuel is probably similar density to water which is about one ton per cubic yard. That would do a lot of damage moving at 400+mph.

Agreed. Thus my comparison to water skiing and water jet steel cutting.

 

[DGM]

Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage and this area had the most robust structure and mass. So this mass... solid and liquid dense as a solid would blast through the steel...and the fuel would disburse immediately... like a wave crashing against a sea wall... only shattering the wall! Fuel is probably similar density to water which is about one ton per cubic yard. That would do a lot of damage moving at 400+mph.

Actually much of the fuel mass is outside of the main body. This helps maintain CG and reduce wing load. This is why the center tank is usually the last to fill.



Long story short. The further outside, the less the wing root has to carry, thus saving weight.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually much of the fuel mass is outside of the main body. This helps maintain CG and reduce wing load. This is why the center tank is usually the last to fill.

[qimg]http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l564/dgmwood/Flammable767.jpg[/qimg]

Long story short. The further outside, the less the wing root has to carry, thus saving weight.

Makes sense.

The further away from the CL, the less mass of fuel though as well. Thus the 78th floor gets less fuel than the 80th.

 

[DGM]

Makes sense.

The further away from the CL, the less mass of fuel though as well. Thus the 78th floor gets less fuel than the 80th.

Yes.

I don't remember the exact loading but, rule of thumb is, load the wings first then the center. It adds stability and reduces stress on the aircraft. Remember flight 800 with the empty center tank?

 

[JayUtah]

Indeed the tanks, being quite heavy when loaded with fuel would be in the CL of the fuselage...

Not all. Airliner fuel tanks extend substantially out into the wings. It's customary to keep the fuel in the centerline tanks during takeoff and landing. When convenient, the fuel management system pumps the fuel into the outboard wing tanks for cruise flight, emptying the centerline fuselage tanks if possible. If this had been done prior to the hijacking, it's unlikely the hijackers would have changed the tanking configuration. However, we know the flights hijacked to New York had heavy fuel loads and may have needed the use of the fuselage tanks even for cruise configuration.

 

[abaddon]

A note of caution.

Frankly, I find any and all CT's about 911 farcical. Nevertheless, JSanderO is one of the very few who will engage in rational discourse. On that basis alone, I kinda like him, much as I may disagree with him.

JSanderO was the very first (and possibly only) 911 CT that I ever saw convinced by rational argument.

He has consistently rolled back when confronted with actual evidence and has even castigated truthers for their baloney, IIRC got a ban or two.

Give the guy a break. At least he is trying, and is that not the point?

To me he is steadily visiting the traditional butcher shop, and finding that if you slice the meat thinly enough, there will be no meat left. This is the thinking that should, in theory, be prevalent. But it is not.

 

[jaydeehess]

A note of caution.

Frankly, I find any and all CT's about 911 farcical. Nevertheless, JSanderO is one of the very few who will engage in rational discourse. On that basis alone, I kinda like him, much as I may disagree with him.

JSanderO was the very first (and possibly only) 911 CT that I ever saw convinced by rational argument.

He has consistently rolled back when confronted with actual evidence and has even castigated truthers for their baloney, IIRC got a ban or two.

Give the guy a break. At least he is trying, and is that not the point?

To me he is steadily visiting the traditional butcher shop, and finding that if you slice the meat thinly enough, there will be no meat left. This is the thinking that should, in theory, be prevalent. But it is not.

While I have had disagreements with JSanderO, I have also largely agreed with him. I feel no ill will towards him either and find his posts thoughtful. I gots no prob wit 'im.

 

[DGM]

Not all. Airliner fuel tanks extend substantially out into the wings. It's customary to keep the fuel in the centerline tanks during takeoff and landing. When convenient, the fuel management system pumps the fuel into the outboard wing tanks for cruise flight, emptying the centerline fuselage tanks if possible. If this had been done prior to the hijacking, it's unlikely the hijackers would have changed the tanking configuration. However, we know the flights hijacked to New York had heavy fuel loads and may have needed the use of the fuselage tanks even for cruise configuration.

I'd have to argue this with you. Keeping the mass centered on the airfoil(wing) will greatly reduce the load on the wing root. Rarely is fuel transferred unless there is an uneven fuel burn or problem concerning yaw control.(not including transfer from center to wing to replenish used on long flights)

 

[JayUtah]

Actually much of the fuel mass is outside of the main body.

You covered it well already. This is what happens when I leave my browser in Reply while I go do something else.

This helps maintain CG and reduce wing load. This is why the center tank is usually the last to fill.

True, but the moment of inertia in the roll axis makes the airplane harder to handle with the fuel outboard, so the mass is typically pumped inboard for takeoff and landing, where snappy roll performance is needed. In cruise flight you generally need only gentle rolls, typically managed adroitly by the autopilot as you select new headings etc.

The fuel management system on a modern airliner really is a thing of beauty. It will indeed correct c-g issues by moving fuel from wing to wing.

 

[jaydeehess]

You covered it well already. This is what happens when I leave my browser in Reply while I go do something else.



True, but the moment of inertia in the roll axis makes the airplane harder to handle with the fuel outboard, so the mass is typically pumped inboard for takeoff and landing, where snappy roll performance is needed. In cruise flight you generally need only gentle rolls, typically managed adroitly by the autopilot as you select new headings etc.

The fuel management system on a modern airliner really is a thing of beauty. It will indeed correct c-g issues by moving fuel from wing to wing.

During roll to take off would it be better as well, to have the mass centered on the fuselage. No lift, so weight of wings is, at that time, on the wing root.

Eta; not that this would make a difference by the time of impact, unless fuel was not moved outboard.

 

[DGM]

You covered it well already. This is what happens when I leave my browser in Reply while I go do something else.



True, but the moment of inertia in the roll axis makes the airplane harder to handle with the fuel outboard, so the mass is typically pumped inboard for takeoff and landing, where snappy roll performance is needed. In cruise flight you generally need only gentle rolls, typically managed adroitly by the autopilot as you select new headings etc.

The fuel management system on a modern airliner really is a thing of beauty. It will indeed correct c-g issues by moving fuel from wing to wing.

You are correct but, NIST reported that all of the 10,000 gallons of fuel was distributed equally between the wing tanks. The aircraft didn't need the center tank fuel because it's well within range with the center tank empty.

Center tank is the last to fill and first to empty.

 

[beachnut]

The fuel was in the wing tanks, you use the wing tanks last, The wings are "stronger" with fuel in them. Think of the root of the wing having to lift the body, you want the extra fuel weight in the wings. The fuel is why the wing had the mass to displace shell panels.
The aircraft has extra flight control magic for low speed, like outboard ailerons in the 767, and spoilers, which work together to keep the roll rate going, so having heavy wings is not an issue for flight control in a heavy jet. I used my wing fuel last unless our mission was to carry fuel to a destination, fuel which was different for a mission bird; then we would save the special fuel, burn what we needed, finish with the wings as to keep as much mission fuel as possible.

Our burn sequence would have us burn our wings last for maximum airframe life. Unless mission dictated otherwise.

It looks like the center wing is out in the wings too. The 10,000 gallons on 911 would be in fuel wing tanks for the 767s, and in the 757, anything over 29,200 pounds of fuel would be in the center tank. There are rules when the wing tanks are not full, weight rules.
... max capacity of the left and right fuel tanks (757) - 14,600 lbs @ 6.7 lbs/gal (767) - 40,300 lbs

center tank fuel capacity (757) - 46,400 lbs @ 6.7 lbs/gal (767) - 79,700lbs

total aircraft fuel capacity (757) - 75,600 lbs @6.7 lbs/gal (767) - 160,300 lbs