PepeLapiuOne of aircraft involved was a 767-200ER, N334AA. But the other, N612UA wasn’t an ER model, simply a 767-200.
That is correct but the official story seems to completely forget this discrepancy. They simply explain how heavy the 200ER was and they let the population lead themselves into thinking that both airplanes were the same weight, almost never mentioning how the other airplane was lighter.
What’s baking my noodle is that according to the official story, the two airplanes would have to be of very different weights, they both impacted the buildings in a different manner (first one dead center, the second one clipped the corner of the building) yet both buildings feel down to dust in the exact same manner.
And then you have the two airplanes which both had less then 50% passenger occupation. Now I am just shooting in the dark here, but an airliner flying with only half it’s passenger capacity is extremely rare. Airlines don’t make much money this way so they try best they can to space out their flights to have them as full as possible. Yet not a single one of the four airliners on 9/11 had more then 50% passenger load. In fact, #77 and #93 had less 25% passenger occupancy on that morning. There were four airplanes involved with a total passenger load of over 800, yet the total amount of passengers from all four flights was around 200 (more or less depending on who you ask).
Now, how often do you guys fly your birds with less then 25% it’s passenger load?
PepeLapiuYou are correct, but somehow this piece of random information is going to convince you to dismiss everything I stated up to now.
It still doesn’t explain how adding fuel to an airplane allows it to suddenlyu carry 25% more weight but only since 9/11.
Don’t take my word for it dude, go to your local library and gwet some documentation published prior to 9/11.
PepeLapiuSomehow I find that hard to believe, that it quietly changed a MTOW by 95,000lbs! A quick look shows a -200 as MTOW 300,000lbs and a -200ER as 395,000lbs. It doesn’t show a -200 as 390,000lbs, books aren’t always terribly accurate, especially when there are different series of aircrafts and different variants of each series.
I agree that changing the MTOW of the 200ER by a whopping 95,000 pounds while leaving the 200 at the same MTOW just doesn’t make sense. But I assure you that virtually EVERY publication you’ll find published before 9/11 will state they have the same MTOW of around 300,000 pounds.
Only, by pure magic did the 200ER suddenly became much bigger on that faithful day.
What doesn’t surprise me is that Boeing denies having changed their numbers on 9/11 and they completely fail to explain how the 767-200ER can carry 25% more weight than the 200 while they both remain identical aside from their respective fuel capacities.
PepeLapiuI suggest you head for the library.
There I found 3 different books printed BEFORE 9/11 and they all state the Max T.O. weight of the 767-200ER at around 300,000 pounds. I am in the process of acquiring some more pre-9/11 books to confirm this.
As for the Boeing site changing it’s numbers quietly after 9/11, I can’t be 100% sure, I have to trust some other people I respect on this because I haven’t seen for myself that the Boeing site had their numbers at 300,000 pounds before 9/11.
What I do know is that the ER stands for extended range, I also know that merely adding fuel to an aircraft does not suddenly allow the aircraft to carry an extra 95,000 pounds of weight around.
And I do know from the Boeing site:
Max design taxi weight: 317,000 / 396,000 pounds (200 / 200ER) – 25% increase
Max design T.O weight: 315,000 / 395,000 pounds – 25% increase
Max design landing weight: 272,000 / 300,000 pounds – 10% increase
Max design zero fuel weight: 250,000 / 260,000 pounds – 4% increase
Operating empty weight: 176,650 / 181,610 – 3% increase
Max structural payload: 73,350 / 78,390 – 7% increase
Usable fuel: 111,890 / 161,738 – 45% increase
Now, these numbers are gathered from the two types using the EXACT same airframe, with the EXACT same engines and EXACT same wingspan. The only difference is the fuel tanks have been increased to 45% more fuel.
It just doesn’t make any sense to think that simply increasing the fuel capacity allows the bird to carry an extra 80,000 pounds (including the fuel).
Now, I guaranty you, just go to ANY library and find yourself a book published before 9/11 and you will see these numbers just don’t add up.
Even the Janes website coincidentally updated their 767 page on that very same day of 9/11 to make it like the 200ER is much heavier than the 200, see for yourself: http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_767.shtml
You can’t make sense out of it, now can you?
Well, let me explain it to you: the WTC towers were designed SPECIFICALLY to resist the impact of the biggest airplane at the time (the 707 at 330,000 pounds) and that is a well documented fact. So in order to create the illusion that the towers could not sustain the impact of the 767, they had to fudge the numbers a bit and start pretending that the 767 is much heavier then the 707.
The truth is that the 707 weights in at 330,000 pounds and cruises at around 604 MPH and the 767 weights in at 300,000 pounds while cruising at around 490 MPH.
In calculating the force at which the airplane impacts the building, you simply multiply the speed by the weight so the a 707 would impact the buildings with a force of 200 million pounds while the 767 would impact the buildings with a force of 150 million pounds.
The 767 made a far lesser impact then what the buildings were designed for and the Boeing guys knew that so they had to create the illusion that the impact of the 767 was actually far worst. With a new weight of 395,000 pounds, they could now pretend that it hit the buildings at 200 million pounds.
Well, that was not quite enough to make the 767 more threatening then the 707 so they started to pretend that the buildings were design to resist the impact of a 707 flying much slower, lost in the fog and all.
But never mind all that, the simple principle of being able to increase the weight by 25% by simply adding more fuel is absolutely ridiculous. If this was true, I’ll install a 500 gallon fuel tank on my Ford Focus so that I could tow a 30 foot trailer behind it.
Does that make sense?
Well, if you want to know more about all this stuff, I suggest you take an hour to see this excellent documentary a friend of mine made: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
PepeLapiu
PepeLapiuWell, I just learned something funny here.
The only difference between the 767-200 and the 767-200ER is in the fuel tank. The ER has a bigger fuel capacity so it can extend it’s range, but same airfoil, same engines, same dimensions all around except for it’s belly fuel tank.
I have 3 different books from the library here, all of them claim that the max T.O. weight of the 767-200ER is 300,000 pounds.
All of these books were published BEFORE 9/11.
Now, both the aircrafts that hit the WTC towers were 767-200ER’s.
But here is the funny thing: shortly after 9/11, Boeing quietly changed the 767-200ER’s max T.O. weight from 300,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds.
No reason has been given for this change, the airplane still has the same engines and all. They actually don’t even acknowledge that they have changed their numbers, never mind stating a reason for changing the said numbers.
Now why would they do that?
How is it that increasing the fuel capacity would allow the bird to carry a 30% increase in cargo weight?
PepeLapiuOnce again you are asking for an exact answer to an inexact question. How high, what speed, how heavy, etc, etc.
I can vary the all engines fuel flow on my current type from anywhere between 2 tonnes per hour to 28 tonnes per hour so it’s impossible to answer unless you give more parameters.
OK, for the sake of argument, let’s imagine half the passenger load with no added cargo, 35 tonnes of fuel on T.O., from Boston on a really clear September day out of Boston, usual cruise speed of 490 MPH and usual cruising altitude (I believe that would be 30,000 or 35,000 ft) and of course one decent at usual vertical speed.
I assume here that the most fuel would be needed during the T.O. and the climb, let’s imagine the usual vertical speed for the climb.
What would your conservative estimate be for fuel after 50 minutes?
PepeLapiuOK now, how much fuel do you think the 767 would have used up after 50 minutes of flight?
PepeLapiuI think maybe the best thing is I go to my local airport and try to get a hold of a flight planner, maybe one of them might be able to help me in this matter?
PepeLapiuOK, here is my problem, the truth is I am not a student, I am in fact making a documentary about the events of 9/11 and you guessed it, it’s about “conspiracy theory” …. I didn’t want to say it because as soon as I say this, people don’t want to collaborate anymore, hence my “student” story.
So I need an official source stating how much fuel is usually used by a 767 on a Boston/L.A. flight. I believe you when you say it’s about 25-30 tonnes but I just can’t use a statement someone on the net told me so I need either official documents or the actual formula used to determine fuel use on that specific trip with that specific aircraft.
So that flight plan, any way a civilian can get a hold of it?
How would I go about getting in touch with a pilot that has access to such flight plans?
Here I am thinking that if I can get a hold of a sympathetic pilot or a sympathetic flight planner, I could get a few flight plans and determine an average from that.
I just don’t know how to get a hold of such flight planner or such pilot, they would have to be working on a Boston/L.A. 767 and that is even more difficult, with me being in Calgary, Canada
PepeLapiuAnd if you have a rather low passenger load, for example the two birds that flew into the WTC towers only had half of their passenger capacities.
So if you have less passengers, would the airline company usually make you carry some cargo on top of the passenger load? Or would that be strictly for cargo planes?
BTW, the “ex-spurts” comment was not really meant as an insult or anything, it was more of a tong-in-cheek comment meant to lighten up the conversation.
You only wish you were lucky enough to be an ex porn star …..:D
PepeLapiuLA to Boston would probably take a different fuel load to Boston to LA due to different wind components, etc…
I guess you are really after a rough ballpark figure so I would work on something around 25-30 tonnes.
No, I am not really after a ballpark figure, rather I need to understand the procedure and the formula involved in calculating the fuel needed for a specific trip.
Surely someone in the airport takes care of that? Surely there must be a specific method to calculate the fuel needed for a specific trip?
And when you say 25-30 tonnes, are you speaking of metric tonnes?
BTW, sorry to all the ex-spurt pilots on here to disrupt your list with my noob questions.
PepeLapiuSo when you guys were to take off from LA to go to Boston on single leg, how much fuel would you expect to be in the tank of your 767?
Here I am just trying to evaluate how much fuel the two 767 that crashed into the WTC towers would be carrying on TO and at impact.
Both took off from Logan and both were on a one leg to LA.
Sign In
