• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Toledo Air Guard and Flight 93

Re: fuel loads and afterburner. The F-14 Tomcat I flew back in the late 80s/early 90s had Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines. Full afterburner on those beasts burned 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Having only 16.5 k fuel internal and another approx 4 k in aux fuel tanks, theoretically we could be in full blower and exhaust our total fuel in 8-10minutes. Yeah, we’d be going the speed of heat but would be an aluminum glider at the end. Anytime I read about people saying “so-and-so jet can go Mach umptisquat at full afterburner totally ignore fuel management and mission effectiveness in those scenarios. Not feasible. Short sprints at full speed/full AB would work, but you have to have fuel when you arrive on target to complete your mission.
 
The main fault that CTs have is running their mouth(fingers) without putting their brain in gear.
They all "know" it was an inside government job so they believe anything/everything other CTs spout or just make up stories to fir their agenda.
 
Pinch said:
Re: fuel loads and afterburner. The F-14 Tomcat I flew back in the late 80s/early 90s had Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines. Full afterburner on those beasts burned 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Having only 16.5 k fuel internal and another approx 4 k in aux fuel tanks, theoretically we could be in full blower and exhaust our total fuel in 8-10minutes. Yeah, we’d be going the speed of heat but would be an aluminum glider at the end. Anytime I read about people saying “so-and-so jet can go Mach umptisquat at full afterburner totally ignore fuel management and mission effectiveness in those scenarios. Not feasible. Short sprints at full speed/full AB would work, but you have to have fuel when you arrive on target to complete your mission.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the facts. My point was that even at balls to the walls speed, the timing wouldn't work out. I wasn't too worried about fuel load since reality long since left this conversation.

After all, it was Rodan, which I had proven in another thread.
 
Pinch said:
Re: fuel loads and afterburner. The F-14 Tomcat I flew back in the late 80s/early 90s had Pratt and Whitney TF-30 engines. Full afterburner on those beasts burned 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Having only 16.5 k fuel internal and another approx 4 k in aux fuel tanks, theoretically we could be in full blower and exhaust our total fuel in 8-10minutes. Yeah, we’d be going the speed of heat but would be an aluminum glider at the end. Anytime I read about people saying “so-and-so jet can go Mach umptisquat at full afterburner totally ignore fuel management and mission effectiveness in those scenarios. Not feasible. Short sprints at full speed/full AB would work, but you have to have fuel when you arrive on target to complete your mission.
Click to expand...

Point well made.

TBH, I don't believe I have seen anyone make that point before. Running on AB is a recipe for an unbelievably thirsty engine.
 
Oystein said:
The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is (roughly) proportional to the cube of velocity (v3) - thus, if you fly twice the speed, you need eight times the fuel per time interval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power
Click to expand...


I'm not an expert on aircraft engines by any means, but I think it's even worse than that, because the afterburners are not nearly as efficient at generating thrust as the basic turbofan assembly.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I'm not an expert on aircraft engines by any means, but I think it's even worse than that, because the afterburners are not nearly as efficient at generating thrust as the basic turbofan assembly.
Click to expand...

Is you lack of expertise based on being a single prop plane and not a jet?
 
So again...what is the point of shooting down United 93? What, exactly, does it prove in the 9/11 conspiracy theorist imagination?
 
Allen773 said:
So again...what is the point of shooting down United 93? What, exactly, does it prove in the 9/11 conspiracy theorist imagination?
Click to expand...

Well, to me, a sane person, if they managed to get a fighter up there and armed and in a position to shoot it down, that would indicate they knew in advance as it takes some preparation.

Maybe it washes some of the blood of the hands of the actual perps, and onto the government.
 
Leftus said:
Well, to me, a sane person, if they managed to get a fighter up there and armed and in a position to shoot it down, that would indicate they knew in advance as it takes some preparation.

Maybe it washes some of the blood of the hands of the actual perps, and onto the government.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Yes. If this thing which did not happen had actually happened, it would be evidence the authorities had foreknowledge.

So the object of the exercise for cranks is not to consider why it could not realistically happen without foreknowledge. It is simply to stoke suspicion that it did in fact happen.
 
Leftus said:
Well, to me, a sane person, if they managed to get a fighter up there and armed and in a position to shoot it down, that would indicate they knew in advance as it takes some preparation.

Maybe it washes some of the blood of the hands of the actual perps, and onto the government.
Click to expand...

Wait, but wasn't NORAD told to "stand down" on 9/11, according to conspiracy theorists? How could the military then be prepared to shoot down a plane? :confused:
 
Leftus said:
The top speed for the F16 is roughly 1500 MPH. That's 25 miles a minute. 300 miles is 12 minutes. If we figure that they took off at 9:56 they would have arrived at 10:08. Since the flight crashed at 10:03, I doubt they could have gotten cannons on at 125 miles...
Click to expand...
Unless flight 93 was expected to hover in one place, by the time the fighters got there, 93 would be somewhere else, moving at a rate of 500MPH. 1500-500 MPH would be the fastest the fighters could travel, relatively, or 1500+500, depending on direction vectors.

And with transponders disabled and their destination unknown, it would be harder to find out exactly where flight 93 was.
 
Allen773 said:
Wait, but wasn't NORAD told to "stand down" on 9/11, according to conspiracy theorists? How could the military then be prepared to shoot down a plane? :confused:
Click to expand...

Of course they were told to stand down by the evil corrupt Bush government with the inept VP Cheney leading the charge since the Pres. was reading stories (fiddling) to school children while the plan was executed. :rolleyes:
 
I believe after I falsely identified Delta 1989 as a hijack to NEADs I mentioned that NEADs should consider contacting other units such as Selfridge and Toledo, mind you that NEADs only officially can request First AF aircraft to launch and intercept, this would only be a request. I can’t remember if I was talking to Dooley or someone else, NEADs mentioned how about Syracuse and Burlington, but I emphasized Selfridge and Toledo and the DC guard as well since we were shut down. No more planes would be coming from Boston. I based most of this on the Ghost AAL11 and the falsely identified DAL1989. I did not know about UAL93 at that moment. So I assume NEADs followed up and launched from Toledo and Selfridge. I believe the first time NEADs heard about UAL93 it was already in the ground. Now that didn’t stop the tracking on the TSD for the next 20 minutes on a false track but there was no aircraft associated with that track.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom