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: 71
10
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
there is no trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think the rest of the forum understands with crystal clarity. He is just being stubborn and refusing to admit when he has lost in a discussion.


Thats funny since people have been writing to me about how you misquote and twist my posts, and how you lie.

I think everyone understanads how you refuse to admit when wrong even when others support what i post.

I am still going to post actual facts and evidence that supprot my claims and questions the official story.



[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am still going to post actual facts and evidence that supprot my claims and questions the official story.


If that was simply true, we wouldn't be having this conversation, son. I find it difficult to believe you were unaware of the difference between an AP article and a FEMA report, and yet you passed it off as a quote from the report. Further, you've posted a lot of things that question the official story that have been weak on proof and long on speculation. I didn't think the NSA worked that way. Perhaps I'm wrong, I've never worked for the NSA.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'd expect better from a member of the NSA. I mean, the entire intelligence community is about compiling and analyzing data.


I would expect better from a person that should be adult enough to admnit when facts, evidence and data are posted for them.

How much more must i post for you to admit i have posted facts and evindece, becasue if you want i can fill a few pages with infomation, but i figured i have posted enough for an adult to

Please explain how a there is a combination of events if several sources rule out 1 event (plane impacts).



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'd think the charade has pretty well played itself out. So probably not much more unless you come up with something credible or so outrageous that I don't think it should go unchallenged.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'd think the charade has pretty well played itself out. .


What charade?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
there is no trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think the rest of the forum understands with crystal clarity. He is just being stubborn and refusing to admit when he has lost in a discussion.


Thats funny since people have been writing to me about how you misquote and twist my posts, and how you lie.

I find that hard to believe.


I think everyone understanads how you refuse to admit when wrong even when others support what i post.

I have only seen 2 other people support you in this entire thread. Maybe I missed one but I doubt it.


I am still going to post actual facts and evidence that supprot my claims and questions the official story.

Thats awesome !!! I can't wait till you start !!!!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I find that hard to believe.

I have only seen 2 other people support you in this entire thread. Maybe I missed one but I doubt it.

Thats awesome !!! I can't wait till you start !!!!


1. Well sorry but i am not going to post my U2Us.

2. Well i was talking about other forums and threads.

3. I have been posting, people just do not want to admit it.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Oh, no. I'll admit you've posted plenty...

Just not that you've posted much in the way of factual data from reliable sources. You don't have to agree with me; you can continue to think it was a big inside job, just don't tinkle in my ear and tell me it's raining....



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I find that hard to believe.

I have only seen 2 other people support you in this entire thread. Maybe I missed one but I doubt it.

Thats awesome !!! I can't wait till you start !!!!


1. Well sorry but i am not going to post my U2Us.

You won't post this... you won't post that.....you misquote and mislead either unwitingly or on purpose. Why am I surprised you won't post those as well.
How about this-Anyone who supports Ultima, please let us know. Thanks it would be greatly appreciated.


2. Well i was talking about other forums and threads.

I've been in MANY of the threads you've been in and you rarely get support in other forums as well.


3. I have been posting, people just do not want to admit it.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I'd admit it in a second but most of what you've been posting is at best half truths which have been shown in a crystal clear manor and at worst deliberate deception.


[edit on 6-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
...just don't tinkle in my ear and tell me it's raining....

They're similar sentiments that I feel, when people put faith in the NIST simulation to support the official story, despite the mathematical errors and the failure of the model to predict what was allegedly observed.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by _Del_
...just don't tinkle in my ear and tell me it's raining....

They're similar sentiments that I feel, when people put faith in the NIST simulation to support the official story, despite the mathematical errors and the failure of the model to predict what was allegedly observed.


Fair enough. Please post the mathematical errors. Show the math please.

Also, can you tell us why the model failed to predict what was observed?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Also, just to be fair to Ultima, do you support what he posts? Thanks for your answer. FYI: It's not meant to pick on you if you do support him.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You won't post this... you won't post that.....you misquote and mislead either unwitingly or on purpose.

I've been in MANY of the threads you've been in and you rarely get support in other forums as well.

I'd admit it in a second but most of what you've been posting is at best half truths which have been shown in a crystal clear manor and at worst deliberate deception.


1. I am not going to get other people involved.

2. Well you must noy have been on the right ones.

3. Yes sure, you would be 1 of only a few believers to ever admit to evidence being posted, i do not believe you.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Fair enough. Please post the mathematical errors. Show the math please.

Sure.

Input = 62,000 pounds of jet fuel. Output = 62,200 pounds of jet fuel. The model failed. It created an extra 200 pounds of jet fuel.

Input = 197,600 pounds of airplane debris. Output = 196,700 pounds of debris. The model failed. It lost 900 pounds of debris.


Also, can you tell us why the model failed to predict what was observed?

No, I can't tell you why it failed to predict an engine exiting the building. However, it failed to do so.

Clearly the model failed to predict what was alleged to have been observed and it has inconsistent errors in its results. Therefore, its validity is questionable, at best and plain wrong, at worst.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Also, just to be fair to Ultima, do you support what he posts? Thanks for your answer. FYI: It's not meant to pick on you if you do support him.

This thread isn't about me or ULTIMA1 or what we think of each other. It's about the evidence to support a conspiracy.

When I see undisputable evidence that the NIST simulated mathematical model is wrong, then I have clear and reasonable doubt about any of the conclusions reached by the NIST model.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Fair enough. Please post the mathematical errors. Show the math please.

Sure.

Input = 62,000 pounds of jet fuel. Output = 62,200 pounds of jet fuel. The model failed. It created an extra 200 pounds of jet fuel.

What was the listed exceptable percentage of error +/- ?



Input = 197,600 pounds of airplane debris. Output = 196,700 pounds of debris. The model failed. It lost 900 pounds of debris.

What was the listed exceptable percentage of error +/- ?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Also, just to be fair to Ultima, do you support what he posts? Thanks for your answer. FYI: It's not meant to pick on you if you do support him.

This thread isn't about me or ULTIMA1 or what we think of each other. It's about the evidence to support a conspiracy.

When I see undisputable evidence that the NIST simulated mathematical model is wrong, then I have clear and reasonable doubt about any of the conclusions reached by the NIST model.


Ultima claimed that a lot of people supported him. I just thought I'd give you a chance to express your support if you indeed give it. I'm just trying to be fair to ultima and try very hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. I understand if you don't want to answer the question.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What was the listed exceptable percentage of error +/- ?

Read my post above, where I replied to weedwhacker.

I'm not retyping it all again.

You clearly don't understand what a model should and should not do.

Input 62,000 pounds of fuel. Output 62,200 pounds of fuel.

This is NOT a rounding error. This is a failure of the model to check itself for self-consistent results.

A mathematical can not alter the physcial boundaries of reality by creating or losing jet fuel. It is not possible for a mathematical model to defy laws of conservation and create an extra 200 pounds of jet fuel using 'magic'.

This is not a rounding error. The model failed.

If 62,000 pounds of jet fuel is input into the model, then 62,000 pounds needs to be output by the model.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by _Del_
...just don't tinkle in my ear and tell me it's raining....

They're similar sentiments that I feel, when people put faith in the NIST simulation to support the official story, despite the mathematical errors and the failure of the model to predict what was allegedly observed.


If you believe you are more qualified to create a model than the NIST please produce one. Include the equations for review.


Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

That seems pretty thorough to me...

You offered the same criticism of the Purdue video on laughable grounds. I'm still waiting to see your assembled data for that one as well.

I'm sorry that my burden of proof before slandering people (yes, even those employed by the government) is higher than, "I saw a compelling Youtube video," "It's never happened before," and "we don't know what plane crashed" Because that's what you are doing when you make these wild accusations. You are slandering good people in civil and military service. Regardless of your opinion of the President, I'd hope your standard for accusing people of murder is higher than "I can't see the wing in the Purdue model"
I'd hope the board's standard is higher than that as well, but apparently it isn't.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Thanks for all of that.

Thanks especially for dodging what I stated - that the NIST report is flawed, as the mathematics is not consistent.

So, over 200 technical experts, etc, contributed to the NIST report, yet NONE of them even realised that their model for the dispersion of jet fuel does not add up? Hmmm... very suspicious.

Input = 62,000 pounds of jet fuel. Output = 62,200 pounds of jet fuel. Unless the 200+ experts have figured out to how to create 200 pounds of jet fuel from nothing, then their model made a mistake.

The rest of your post is off-topic. I didn't claim that I could make a better model than NIST. I am claiming that the NIST model is wrong, with evidence. Please stick to this evidence, rather than speculating on what I can or can't do. Be mindful of the terms and conditions of this website and be careful what you state about me. I have shown that the NIST model is wrong. Please explain how a mathematical model can create 200 pounds of jet fuel?

[edit on 6-5-2008 by tezzajw]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join