PART
6. FUEL LOAD ANALYSIS.
The
previous analysis examined the question of whether it was possible for the plane
to have been cremated in the context of the damage to the Pentagon wall. It was
shown not to be. But is such a cremation possible anyway, in any situation? The
only available source of energy is the plane's fuel. Jet
fuel burns at 800 degrees C. Aluminium, from which a large part of a plane is
constructed, melts at 660 degrees C. During
the aluminium recycling process, it is heated to 700 degrees C, and then poured
into moulds. So
it is possible in theory for burning jet fuel to melt aluminium, although this
is not the same as cremating it. Whether it's possible in practice depends upon
the ratio of fuel to aluminium and how efficiently it is
applied. One
look at the shape of an aircraft tells us that it's a very difficult shape to
efficiently apply such energy to. Long and thin one way, crossed at 90 degrees
by another section, also long and thin. So if one was to try to melt a 757 by
sitting it in a tub of burning jet fuel, the tub would have to be a very
specifically designed shape, unless you wanted to waste an awful lot of fuel. No
such intelligently designed, controlled and efficient application of fuel can
occur in a crash, so even if all of the fuel burned or exploded, only a small
proportion of it could have been applied in an efficient manner to the task of
melting the plane. How
much fuel was on board? A maximum possible figure can be calculated from the
specifications referenced at the beginning of the article. According to the
official story, the plane left Dulles, flew about 400 miles to Ohio, and then
300 back to Washington before crashing - about 15.7 % of it's maximum range. So
if it had a full tank on departure, then the most fuel it can have had when it
crashed was about 85 % of it's maximum capacity. This is 9765 gallons. The
maximum take off weight of the plane is 255,00 lbs. Let's assume a rounded
figure of 200,000 lbs of aluminium and other materials in this plane. I'll call
it 180,000 lbs of aluminium. This
is a guess, but not a completely uneducated one. According
to http://www.bath.ac.uk/~en0daar/Materials.htm about
80% of the structural material of a plane is aluminium, although it doesn't
specify whether this is by weight or volume. If we assume that it refers to
weight, then if the plane's weight - minus the fuel load was 200,000 lbs at take
off, this gives a figure of 160,000lb of aluminium. The other significant
materials are steel and titanium. (See the above link) Since both steel and
titanium have higher melting points than aluminium, http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html thus
increasing the work needing to be done by the burning fuel, a factor which then
needs to be offset by such materials as glass and plastic, then assuming the
other 40,000 lbs of plane weight to be roughly equivalent to another 20,000 lbs
of aluminium in terms of the energy required to melt the plane would appear to
give an accurate enough estimation for the analysis which
follows. Such
crude approximations are only a problem if the result is marginal, so lets see
if it is. It
means that each gallon of fuel, even applied with intelligent efficiency would
have to melt about 18.5 lbs of aluminium. Does this sound possible? Assume a 50
% efficiency rate, which would seem extraordinarily generous. The result is the
equivalent of half the available fuel being applied with intelligently designed
efficiency, and the other half being completely wasted. So the equivalent ratio
for the problem is the need for each gallon of fuel being able to melt 37 lbs of
aluminium, in a controlled and designed situation. Let's
translate this data into an everyday example. 1 gallon is about the size of the
small emergency fuel cans that motorists carry. 1 lb of Aluminium makes about 29
and a half standard soft drink cans. http://www.westfield-ma.com/tips/aluminium.htm So
37 lbs of aluminium is about 1090 cans. Can you melt 1090 aluminium cans with a
1 gallon can of kerosene? Let's reduce the alleged cremation of AA 77 to a crude
model with a scale about 1 to 10,000. This model is extremely crude, but nowhere
as crude as simply saying “The plane burned - end of thought process.” The model
doesn't take into account other materials such as glass, plastic, fibreglass,
steel, titanium etc. And the scaling is extremely rough. But the only point in
exploring this model further would be if it gave any indication that the melting
of the aircraft was even remotely possible. Reduce the fuel load to a scale of 1
to 10,000 - about 1 gallon, and then halve it to account for the 50 %
efficiency. Reduce the weight of the plane to the same scale - about 18 lbs of
aluminium. Reduce total cubic volume of the plane by the same scale, in order to
keep the same weight to size ratio- and material to air ratio. This means
reducing the dimensions to a scale of about 1 to 22. ( 22 times 22 times 22 =
close enough to 10,000 ) The result is a fuselage about 7 ft long, about 6
inches wide and about 7 inches high, with a very thin cross section representing
the wings, about 5 ft 6 in long. This structure is made from 18 lbs of aluminium
- about 530 compressed aluminium cans. To give an idea of the density, each foot
of the fuselage would contain about 70 cans worth of metal. Fill a section in
the middle with half a gallon of kerosene and set fire to it, and see if you can
melt it. Better still, attach a fuse to a small firecracker placed inside, to
give the fuel the best chance of going up in one sudden catastrophic explosion,
rather than burning slowly, to see if we can not just melt, but actually cremate
the model - reduce it to a pile of dust and ashes. It is of course, impossible.
And
we're only talking about melting, not cremation. Even if this ridiculous
scenario was possible, we should see a big block of something approaching 100
tons of melted aluminium somewhere. This would be a little hard to miss, if it
was there. The
US government may be the most powerful on Earth, but if it believes that it has
invented legislation that changes or suspends the laws of physics, then it needs
a reality check. Things can only happen if there is enough energy to drive the
process. All such processes are calculable and predictable. If there was
insufficient energy for an alleged event, then it never happened. There wasn't
enough energy in the fuel load to melt, let alone cremate the plane, which means
that it didn't happen. PART
7. WERE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DIFFERENT ON SEPT 11? There
are some who like to point to the WTC crashes to make the point that planes can
and do explode into nothing in a crash. It is curious that the only examples
which can be found of this allegedly explosive cremation of crashing planes just
happens to be on Sept 11, 2001. A thorough examination of the history of
aviation disasters on any other day shows that this simply doesn’t happen. This
will be demonstrated by a library of aviation disaster photos to be presented
shortly. Unless
the laws of physics were different on Sept 11 2001, all that the WTC crashes
demonstrate is that these planes must have been loaded with explosives, because
a tank of kerosene does not have the capability for that kind of explosive force
without the input of an extra energy source, nor the total available energy to
do the job. Following is a series of photos of planes which crashed into
mountains, nosedived into the ground, collided with other aircraft, crashed on
take off, crashed into buildings, streets or forests, had bombs planted aboard
them, or crashed next to petrol stations. Note the remarkably intact wreckage
compared to what happened in the WTC crashes and what is alleged to have
happened in to AA 77. Here’s
a good comparison. An American Airlines Boeing 757 which crashed into a
mountain. Here’s
three more 757 crashes and a 767 This
plane crashed into a field 80 degrees nose down. This
DC 10 crashed into a mountain. This
one crashed right next to a petrol station and still didn’t blow anything up.
And
here’s a whole lot of other crashes This is what real wreckage of real plane
crashes looks like. http://www.airsafetyonline.com/photos/aa1420/1.shtml
Wreckage
photos of the plane which crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 are
unclear, but here is a description of the wreckage. http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm [[Some
debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying
for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still,
a bulk of wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames
were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the
wreckage was removed through the building.]] Here's
the wreckage of the Cessna which crashed into a building in Tampa in Jan 2002.
That
should be enough to make the point. But in case you want to see more, these
sites - from which the above photos were sourced, http://www.airsafetyonline.com/photos/
have
photos of hundreds more crashes which I haven’t linked to individually. In the
first list, they are listed from top to bottom by date. One famous date is
conspicuous by it’s absence. Sept 11, 2001. There were 4 plane crashes that day.
But none of them left any wreckage. What it means is that the WTC crash planes
and whatever hit the Pentagon were destroyed with powerful explosives.
Information about UAL 93 has been so scarce that its hard to comment. ( Why the
secrecy ? )The preceding photos demonstrate that the WTC crashes were unique in
aviation history. It’s already been demonstrated that a full tank of jet fuel
doesn’t have the available energy to do the job. The
analysis below demonstrates from a different perspective why crashed planes do
not explode in massively destructive fireballs. Kerosene (jet fuel) is not a
volatile enough material. But what would happen, just supposing we could get a
fuel tank to blow up? Although jet fuel is not a particularly explosive
substance, it is possible to get it to explode in some
situations. Because
it so rarely happens, we are forced to examine a different kind of air disaster
- TWA 800, which blew up in mid air, shortly after take off. The official story
is that it was caused by an exploding fuel tank. Sceptics say that it was hit by
a missile. Regardless of which it was, there was plenty of wreckage. The
following analysis of arguments relating to TWA 800, demonstrate that both sides
of the argument act to debunk the official story of AA 77. If it was hit by a
missile, then it demonstrates that even an impact of this ferocity still doesn’t
reduce a plane to dust and ashes, and doesn’t set off a catastrophic fuel tank
inferno capable of cremating a plane. If the official story is true, then the
arguments put forward to support it (several years before AA 77) act as
inadvertent rebuttals to the official AA 77 story. In
this article on TWA 800, he
discusses a theory put forward by Stanford University Professor Sullivan S.
Marsden about why TWA 800 exploded. Professor Sullivan has had to propose a very
complex set of circumstances to try to explain how such a unique event as the
alleged explosion of a fuel tank could have occurred. Salisbury
writes [[Jet
fuel normally is not explosive at temperatures below 100 degrees Fahrenheit. But
on TWA 800 the air-conditioner heat exchangers probably warmed the air/fuel
mixture in the tank above that point. When the aircraft is flying, the energy
given off by the heat exchangers is effectively dissipated to the outside air.
But when the air conditioners are run while the aircraft is on the ground and
the tank is nearly empty, the heat exchangers put out enough heat to raise the
temperature of the air/fuel mixture into the danger zone, Marsden says.
]] In
other words, it’s impossible to blow up a full tank of fuel, without input of
extra energy, because the air /fuel mixture isn’t right, and the presence of the
full fuel load cools it to below explosive temperature. Even a full fuel tank
falls ridiculously short of the energy required to even melt a plane, let alone
cremate it, and this theory is saying that the only real risk of an explosion is
with a near empty tank. Which is why TWA didn’t get blown into nothing . And why
it simply can’t happen, even when planes have bombs planted aboard or are shot
down. TWA
800 was a 747. Marsden’s theory cited very specific concerns with the fuel
delivery systems of 747s. Whether or not his ideas on TWA 800 are plausible,
what it demonstrates is that aviation experts, even when concocting cover
stories for the government, if this is what Marsden was doing, do not accept
that aircraft simply explode and are cremated as a matter of course. It’s a very
complex argument to try to explain how a fuel tank might have exploded. Or at
least, that was the official view before Sept 11, 2001 Sceptics
claim that even Marsden’s theory is ludicrously overestimating the explosive
capabilities of jet fuel. From this Washington post article. [[September
27, 1997 |