No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

The irony

- - - Updated - - -

Complete logic fail.

So, the fuel wasn't contained in the wing...which was traveling at 590mph?

 

Good Lord, more lack of... well just about everything. Fuel in the wings has nothing to do with engine mounts.

 

You did not read my post(?)
the fuel was cited as a bit of mass that would
contribute to the penetration of the jet engine,
however, if said fuel is only connected to the
engine by way of a mount that is attached to the wing,
then the entire stress of the engine penetrating the wall
would have to be impressed upon that mount connected to
the wing. what are the odds of breaking off a wing?

- - - Updated - - -

The argument was being made that the mass of fuel contributed to the mass that was driving the engine into the building, therefore the stress involved would have to be impressed upon the engine mount that is connected to the wing.
now do you see?

 

Michigan authorities searched Thursday for a jet engine that fell off the wing of a Boeing 747 cargo plane that departed O'Hare International Airport.

 

You keep making claims based physics that you can't name or show the calculations for. Also, you continue to ignore that the building was not offering the resistance that you claim it should have.

Your point is moot.

Your claim is nonsense.

 

that since you boys have no clue whats missing in that pic that you have proven you..et al...have no clue about crash dynamics.

 

So you are going to compound bob's lack of knowledge. Why am I not surprised?

 

and an engine could fall off of an aircraft for any number of reasons
including poor maintenance, or? What is this intended to illustrate?
Certainly an engine can become disconnected from the wing, and
so this simply makes the case for the engine/wing connection breaking
in the course of the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall.

 

OMFG,

I still cant believe that ANYONE even debunkers would believe that insanity!

Look!

Here is 3/10ths of a ton of fuel, in other words a couple 50 gallon drums and we have more FAR flames than we did at the WTC!



this whole passenger plane with all that fuel is loonacy in the first degree!

Pay attention to the trees for perspective.

 

Well, you are right, reality just can't compare to gifs.

 

you mean fantasy

I have to laugh, debunkers are so clueless, have no idea how incredibly HUGE that fireball would have been if it really were 35tons of fuel.

that was a few 50 gallons drums with a lil c4

 

Yeah, because none of the explosion would have taken place inside the tower.

Does your logic and common sense button neet to be reset?

 

I don't think Koko realizes that it has to mix with air and that most of it stayed inside or that the fire shown is typical of diesel fuel burning.

[video=youtube_share;nh28XcnpzX4]http://youtu.be/nh28XcnpzX4[/video]

 

that doesnt make any sense what so ever.

its not diesel either.

 

Well, his claim is just another red herring to cover up the FACT they cannot answer the original queston in this thread.

 

LOL, so now you are going to come along and educate us on aviation like bob did? If that's the case, let me get my belly laugh band on.

 

Kerosene and diesel ARE right next to each other in the refining process

 

Jet fuel and Diesel fuel are closely related.

1. Jet-A is a relatively high sulfur fuel, diesel is low sulfur and EPA requirements are getting more stringent about sulfur in diesel every year. After all, we are now in the Ultra-Low Sulfur diesel era. Using Jet-A in your truck will be highly frowned on by your EPA inspector and could lead to fines.

2. Jet-A is “dry.” Diesel is made in such a way, or additives are mixed in, to lubricate the injector system of a diesel engine.

3. Jet-A is closer to kerosene and Diesel #1. Most modern diesel engines specify Diesel #2.

4. The viscosity specifications for the two fuels is different. Jet-A and Diesel #1 tend towards lower viscosities than Diesel #2. Lower lubricity is likely as the viscosity decreases. This may not cause catastrophic instant damage, but it may cause long-term wear of pumps, injectors, etc.

 

I remember years back when diesel vehicles were becoming more common,People here in Texas on the border were going into Mexico to get cheaper priced diesel....ended up gumming up their injector pumps with paraffin.....

 

May I point out that asking for HOW something was done
when the questions are still unanswered as to exactly what
was done, is putting the cart before the horse. .... oh well....

 

I think you should first address your total lack of comprehension of things like aircraft, flight, and physics before you proceed any further.

 

Really? and also enroll you in probability 101 ( or? )

 

I thought you were 100% sure it was CD?

 

however,
I'm not the one asking for speculation as to how it was done.

 

Like I said its not diesel, thanks for finally agreeing with me.

I agree with the first part, the rest however is completely incorrect