It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 67
10
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Pilgrum.....as if, the people were at the edge of the building, at the risk of falling, in order to get an escape from the smoke? To get air to breathe??

AND, hoping for rescue?

Nah....according to the Ct'ers, no one would try to survive, to breathe, to escape the flames and smoke in anyway way they could.......

WW




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO i admit the NIST final report contridicts all the previous reports and their own computer model.


So...when the NIST makes a preliminary report...then later finds discrepancies to that report, they are not allowed to add ANY of that information to their reports because it goes against the first one?




(1) Most of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings.


The very link you provided stated at most 30% was consumed in the explosion. Same with the NIST report.

How is 30% considered MOST? 30% is less than 70%. Do you do math differently at the NSA?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

The very link you provided stated at most 30% was consumed in the explosion. Same with the NIST report.

How is 30% considered MOST? 30% is less than 70%. Do you do math differently at the NSA?


Notice that his link is to a mirror site of 9-11Research.wtc7.net.

It is generally a spoof/bad mouth of the REAL 9-11Research site.

Perhaps this counters the notion that he's writing a book. Wonder if he's one of these dudes?

Cuz I have biiiig doubts about the whole NSA claim. As far as I know, most gov't operations don't allow their employees to post stuff on random internet boards during working hours. They have blocks and/or reviews to see where their employees are surfing....

But he doesn't seem to have much problem posting for 1-3 hrs every afternoon. Highly dubious IMHO that he with the NSA.......



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The largest obstacle to writing a book would be spelling and grammar. Perhaps a good editor could make it readable. I think the NSA claim can be dismissed until he provides a copy of a paystub.

More OT: It's not the simple misstatement of facts, but the unwillingness to admit inconsequential error that is most damaging to his case. He could cede a few of his points that are in error without manifestly impacting his argument, but instead clings to them. Further a source one cites should be reliable. You may not agree with everything in the source, but you must consider it generally reliable. It makes little to quote from a 28 page document the four sentences that agree with you and then turn on the rest of the document as unreliable. That is the clincher, imo.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by Disclosed

Cuz I have biiiig doubts about the whole NSA claim. As far as I know, most gov't operations don't allow their employees to post stuff on random internet boards during working hours. They have blocks and/or reviews to see where their employees are surfing....

But he doesn't seem to have much problem posting for 1-3 hrs every afternoon. Highly dubious IMHO that he with the NSA.......


Very good points. He also keeps claiming to have access to top secret info. You'd think the NSA wouldn't want that advertised either????

He has offered to post watermarked government documents to prove who he is and you'd think that would be a big no no too ??? His claim is that the watermarked documents cannot be faked which is of course silly or those water marks would be used on US currency so the treasury would NEVER have to worry about counterfeiters. You'd think an NSA employee would know stuff like that ????

By the way, don't tell anyone but I'm Captain America and I can post documents that prove it



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
1. At what temperature does steel lose strength?
2. How long must steel sustain these temperatures to "give way?"
3. What were the temperatures at the WTC(s) on 9/11/01?
4. At what temperature does jet fuel burn?
5. I'm probably forgetting a question or two, feel free to add to mine.


- Plane crashes into WTC 2, the jet fuel causes a massive fire ball explosion which burns off the majority of the jet fuel at that time. There is structural damage to the upper floors, as well as office fires for approximately 56 minutes. 56 minutes after this plane crash, WTC 2 collapses at near free fall speed, with little to no resistance from the lower floors.

- Plane crashes into WTC 1, again the jet fuel causes a massive fire ball explosion which burns off the majority of the fuel. Again there is damage and office fires, this time the fires last for 102 minutes. After these 102 minutes, and the collapse of WTC 2, WTC 1 collapses almost exactly like WTC 2.

So we have a fire that lasts for FIFTY-SIX minutes (while another building burns for 24 hours and is still standing the next day), and causes the largest sky-scrapper in America to fall at near free fall speeds, pulvaraising the building leaving only partial beams of steel and concrete and plaster dust.

I. Do. Not. Buy. It.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Double Eights....did you not scroll up to read other posts??

The initial impacts DID NOT 'burn off' all of the fuel!

Read what others have posted....THEN show how they may be wrong.

ps...we saw a 'fireball' on the outside of the buildings, that is to be expected, since it was the last several hundred gallons of fuel that didn't continue DEEP into the buildings, from the KINETIC ENERGY of the airplane's motion!

BTW....fuel is a liquid, remember???? It sloshes, it flows.....it spatters, it atomizes.....it is dynamic, and with that much force, it goes everywhere!!!



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Double Eights....did you not scroll up to read other posts??

The initial impacts DID NOT 'burn off' all of the fuel!

Read what others have posted....THEN show how they may be wrong.

ps...we saw a 'fireball' on the outside of the buildings, that is to be expected, since it was the last several hundred gallons of fuel that didn't continue DEEP into the buildings, from the KINETIC ENERGY of the airplane's motion!

BTW....fuel is a liquid, remember???? It sloshes, it flows.....it spatters, it atomizes.....it is dynamic, and with that much force, it goes everywhere!!!


Complete 9/11 timeline JEt fuel

Read this, and then tell me the Jet fuel didn't burn off quickly.

Edit: Jesus, links suck on ATS. They never work. Wow...Just google "complete 9/11 timeline jet fuel." Stupid ass link won't work.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Double Eights]

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Double Eights]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Double 8's....

I looked at your link....has nothing to do with what I posted, nor what you posted when you provided the link.

Good bit of historical revisionism, though.....

WW

edit...just saw YOUR edit.....about links that don't work....OK, I'll reserve judgement.

[edit on 5/5/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Double 8's....

I looked at your link....has nothing to do with what I posted, nor what you posted when you provided the link.

Good bit of historical revisionism, though.....

WW

edit...just saw YOUR edit.....about links that don't work....OK, I'll reserve judgement.

[edit on 5/5/0808 by weedwhacker]


The link should work now.

I finally figured it out.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


OK, Double 8's.....I scanned, I admit, because it's long, the link...but the first part I noticed was the claim of '9100 gallons' of fuel.

Compared to some '23,000 gallons' of capacity....no, not on a B767-200. Maybe a B767-300ER, or the B767-400.....

For clarity, fuel is boarded on a jet, in gallons, as metered by the pump trucks (it comes from underground pipes, the truck merely provides the 'uplift') but when it's onboard, we measure it in pounds. One gallon of Jet-A, at normal ambient temperatures, weighs 6.7 pounds.

We get a 'fuel slip', from the fueler, who signs it. It stays in the records....

We verify the 'uplift' by inputting it into the FMC....which knows the fuel at arrival, from the last flight. We also use our brains to know if it WAY off, or if it is close, from experience. BUT, it must match, or else, we verify, and it is REQUIRED to verify, by Maintenance, for all Over-Water flights (but that isn't pertinent right now...)

9.100 gallons is equal to about 61,000 pounds. That's a pretty light fuel load for a WestBound transcon flight....even allowing for the take-off and first 45 minutes of burn....

See, every commercial flight, operating under FAR Part 121, must have sufficient fuel, before take-off, to fly to the destination, and if the weather is forecasted for two hours before to two hours after the ETA (basically, a four-hour window) to meet VFR standards, then have sufficient fuel to fly for another 45 minutes.

If the weather forecast, at the destination, at ETA, is not going to be VFR, then there must be MORE fuel.

Furthermore, many airlines will 'Tanker' fuel.....if the payload is light enough...fuel prices in New York may be higher than in Los Angeles, or vice versa....it varies daily....

'Tankering' fuel, though, extracts a cost, because it costs fuel to carry fuel....because of the weight....so, it is a balancing act. Fuel costs, versus payload....payload usually wins, unless it's about range requirements....winds, or tailwinds can be involved in the decision-making process...

See? The amount of fuel on the accident airplanes is not truly known UNLESS you have the original disptach records. Of the actual flights, not the ones before....the actual flights of 11 Sep 2001.

Hope this helps....I know you're not an airline pilot, there is a lot to explain, and it simply can't be accomplished in an online forum....you have to learn it....or spend 30 years flying, as I HAVE.....

WW



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...but the first part I noticed was the claim of '9100 gallons' of fuel. Compared to some '23,000 gallons' of capacity....no, not on a B767-200. Maybe a B767-300ER, or the B767-400.....
9,100 gallons is equal to about 61,000 pounds. That's a pretty light fuel load for a WestBound transcon flight....even allowing for the take-off and first 45 minutes of burn....

The NIST report listed the plane as having 62,000 pounds of fuel.

The NIST report also incorrectly summed the distribution of fuel to 62,200 pounds.

Take a look for yourself, weedwhacker.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...but the first part I noticed was the claim of '9100 gallons' of fuel. Compared to some '23,000 gallons' of capacity....no, not on a B767-200. Maybe a B767-300ER, or the B767-400.....
9,100 gallons is equal to about 61,000 pounds. That's a pretty light fuel load for a WestBound transcon flight....even allowing for the take-off and first 45 minutes of burn....

The NIST report listed the plane as having 62,000 pounds of fuel.

The NIST report also incorrectly summed the distribution of fuel to 62,200 pounds.

Take a look for yourself, weedwhacker.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by tezzajw]


Ummmmm.....isn't 62,000 pounds pretty close to my estimation of 61,000 pounds???

As I said....the fuel load, at departure from the gate, must be within a few hundred pounds of what the Dispatcher, and the Captain, have agreed upon, before the flight departs.

What was the Gate Fuel? Or, depending on the airline, the 'Fuel at push-back'....?? What was the FOB? Including the 'taxi fuel', the 'fuel to TOC', the 'fuel at cruise to TOD' and the fuel to the Approach, with the required reserves???

Every airline has a different way to designate these requirements, and the names will change....

You must investigate what each airliner was fueled to, befoe push-back, and determine THEN how much fuel was onboard at impact...taking into account the taxi from the gate, the take-off, the climb to altitude....and after take-over, the fuel to the targets.....

See, a lot of fuel will be burned during intial take-off, and climb to cruise....plus, once taken over, fuel will still be consumed, until impact....

It's not as simple as it seems....



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[Ummmmm.....isn't 62,000 pounds pretty close to my estimation of 61,000 pounds???

weedwhacker, I'm not disputing your calculation of 61,000 pounds or calling it to error. Yes, 61,000 pounds is close to 62,000 pounds - no big deal.

You misread the intent of my post.

You called into quesiton the validity of the link stating that the plane had 61,000 (or 62,000) pounds of fuel on board.

I explained that the NIST report uses a figure of 62,000 pounds AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED IMPACT.

If you don't think that the plane had around 62,000 pounds of fuel on board AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED IMPACT, then you disagree with the NIST report.

If you cared to read the NIST report, as I stated in my previous post, you'll also see how NIST incorrectly sum a column of numbers, which is suspicious.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezza....if you paid careful attention, you would then be able to ascertain the Dispatch fuel loads for the UAL 175 and AAL 11, when they left the gates, in Boston.

Please look that data up....then calculate, for us, the fuel burns, from taxi and take-off, to climb....to take-over, and flight back to impact....

It's up to you to connect the dots....I've given you the background of how a real airliner operates....

WW



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It's up to you to connect the dots....I've given you the background of how a real airliner operates....

weedwhacker, there are no dots to connect. There's no need for you to take the thread off-topic by trying to impress me with your experience. I believe you know your stuff about planes, so your lengthy explanations detract from the point in question.

How can I make it any more possibly clear to you, that the NIST report models the fuel distribution using 62,000 pounds AT THE TIME OF IMPACT.

I don't know how much fuel was loaded on the plane at the time of push-back or departure. It's not relevant to how much fuel was allegedly dispersed AT THE TIME OF IMPACT.

I am stating to you that NIST uses a figure of 62,000 pounds AT THE TIME OF IMPACT. Believe that or not, it's your choice. I encourage you to read it, so that you can verify the figure with your own eyes.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


OK, tezza...I get your point....

BUT, didn't NIST also point out how ll of those gallons of jet fuel, based on the kinetic energy, were sprayed all over the place, inside the buildings????

I mean, doesn't that make any sense to you? The fuel would be bursting into the building....the quick explosions we all saw, on the outside, were just the few hundred pounds remaining....or, in the case of the second attack, we saw a fireball exit the building....that wasn't the fuel....!!! Some of it was, but it wasn't all of it!!!!

Look....Jet-A, in a bucket, if you through a match into it, the match would likely go out. As if you threw it into water. BUT, once that Jet-A gets atomized, and there's an ignition source!!! It's going to burn, baby!!

Just think about an incendiary substance, being sprayed all over your house...being atomized from an impact of some sort...and multiply that by a thousand.....

I'm talking of course, of a "Molotov cocktail".....because that is, in essence, what happened on 9/11. The jets were used as 'Molotov cocktails'!!!

No one wants to ackowledged this, but it is really the bottom line...

People shy away, because of the loss of lives, and devastation....but, it is just that simple....a suicide Molotov cocktail.......



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I am stating to you that NIST uses a figure of 62,000 pounds AT THE TIME OF IMPACT. Believe that or not, it's your choice. I encourage you to read it, so that you can verify the figure with your own eyes.


It's a very weak point to try to prove or disprove anything with. The quantity of remaining fuel was estimated because the precise figure can never be known and the sum of estimates (62200) is rounded to the nearest 1000 producing a rounding error in the vicinity of 0.32% which does not really represent a glaring mistake. What if it was rounded to the nearest 10000 - a figure of 60000 wouldn't have really made any appreciable difference to the outcome in the study. Would you be happier if every figure estimated was displayed to an accuracy of 5 decimal places?

The real number which will remain unknown won't be any of the above figures, but it will be close like within 5%.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yes, we're all aware of the fantasy movement's standards.

Your example here and regarding the amount of steel in an F-4 serves as a fine example why no one takes the CTists seriously.

Carry on.........


We are all aware also that the believers have no standards, they are just good little robots that only beleive what they are told by the media.

I have proved the amount of streel on an F-4 and if you would have read my post you would have seen that i just lowered the amount trying to be considerate and giving the believers a break.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1I have proved the amount of streel on an F-4 and if you would have read my post you would have seen that i just lowered the amount trying to be considerate and giving the believers a break.


That's as close to an admission of guilt as I think we're likely to get. Thanks for giving us a break.




top topics



 
10
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join