It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 72
10
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:25 PM

tezza.....200 pounds is 29 gallons. at full throttle, each engine burns about 9000 pounds per hour....that's 18000 PPH total. That means the engine burn rate is 300 PPM.

Do you know, that when we are dispatched from the gate, we are given a fuel load....we get a fuel slip, with the upload in gallons....we multiply that by 6.7......and that number should match our fuel gauges (which read in pounds). If it's off by 200 pounds, it's close enough!!!!!!

The density of jet fuel varies, by temperature. It expands in warm climes, condenses in cold. Jet-A can vary from 6.6 pounds to 6.8 punds per gallon...hence, the average of 6.7

200 pounds!!! Wow....that's one minute of fuel! Big deal!

WW

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
tezza.....200 pounds is 29 gallons.
200 pounds!!! Wow....that's one minute of fuel! Big deal!

weedwhacker, it's hardly worth my time to respond to you, when you apparently don't understand the error that you're making.

The fact that the error is 200 pounds is not relevant.

The fact that there IS an error is relevant.

NIST inputs 62,000 pounds of jet fuel into the simulated model. The model outputs a dispersion of 62,200 pounds. 200 pounds of jet fuel CAN NOT be created by a model.

There is a fundamental error in the NIST model, as it does not check for consistency with the input parameters and the output results. The model is not valid, as it clearly shows flawed calculations.

You don't seem to understand this, as you only quote your airline experience to me, rather than showing any conceptual understanding about programming a computer simulated, mathematical model.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:32 PM

tezza.....200 pounds of Jet-A is about one minute of fuel, between two engines, at cruise power.

If NIST made a small error in their calculations, then they made an error....a trivial error!!

I have to take your word on this....but, what I am trying to point out is....it's a MINOR error!!!! 200 pounds of fuel is 'chump change' in the larger scheme of things!!!

It doesn't a Conspiracy make!!!.....

WW

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:52 PM
200 / 62,200 = .00322. That's a .322% error. Sure computers make errors and it should have been checked, but seriously, it's a 1/3 of a percent.

We've let plenty of things go for higher errors in the engineering world.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by HLR53K]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
If NIST made a small error in their calculations, then they made an error....a trivial error!!

It is not a trivial error.

The NIST model has created 200 pounds of jet fuel from nothing.

It is not possible to create matter from a model. This flaw should have been detected by the algorithm, but it wasn't.

Somewhere in the model's code, part of the algorithm is wrong. This is very clear, as the output results do not match the input parameters. Given that the algorithm is wrong, then ALL other calculations that are determined by the NIST model are questionable.

The NIST computer model is wrong.

1) It gave incorrect results for the jet fuel dispersion.
2) It gave incorrect results for the airplane debris dispersion.
3) It did not predict that an engine would exit the tower.

People who believe the official story can not take the NIST report as gospel, when it is wrong. W R O N G.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:01 PM

Well, tezza....why not try to dissect the comuter model then, eh?

You know it better than I, apparently.

BTW....Melbourne is a beautiful city.....can I come live with you?????

WW

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:08 PM

Originally posted by HLR53K
200 / 62,200 = .00322. That's a .322% error. Sure computers make errors and it should have been checked, but seriously, it's a 1/3 of a percent.

You know as well as I do, that minor differences can have extreme effects. I won't refer you to chaos theory, as you've probably heard about it.

NIST is supposed to be a professional body. How is it so, that NONE of the authors detected that their computer model gave spurious results by creating mass (jet fuel) and then destroying mass (airplane debris)?

Any GOOD computer programmer will build a series of checks and balances into the code to check all results. Why didn't the NIST model detect and then alert that it is not possible to output 62,200 pounds of jet fuel, when only 62,000 pounds has been input?

I have no faith in the NIST results, knowing that the error checking was poor.

How do we know that the model didn't miss out on any errors in flame temperatures, loads, stresses, burn times, buckling, etc?

The NIST computer model, is at best, a book of gospel that some people need to clutch. It's much easier to believe what you're told. In this example, some people are prepared to believe that 62,000 = 62,200 without question.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by tezzajw

It is not a trivial error.

The NIST model has created 200 pounds of jet fuel from nothing.

It is not possible to create matter from a model. This flaw should have been detected by the algorithm, but it wasn't.

Somewhere in the model's code, part of the algorithm is wrong. This is very clear, as the output results do not match the input parameters. Given that the algorithm is wrong, then ALL other calculations that are determined by the NIST model are questionable.

The NIST computer model is wrong.

1) It gave incorrect results for the jet fuel dispersion.
2) It gave incorrect results for the airplane debris dispersion.
3) It did not predict that an engine would exit the tower.

People who believe the official story can not take the NIST report as gospel, when it is wrong. W R O N G.

I do agree that it's strange that the model added 200 lbs. of fuel. I wonder if the equations were interative?

Then why do some people like Ultima pull quotes from it to further his argument? Doesn't that invalidate his point? Sorry, had to say it.

And I would like to join you in Melbourne. I have family in Australia and would love to visit them!

[edit on 6-5-2008 by HLR53K]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:15 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, tezza....why not try to dissect the comuter model then, eh?

I have limited experience with the basics of modelling/programming. I'm not that smart. However, I am smart enough to know that output results can not contradict the input parameters. There's a bug in the NIST model and it's plain for all to see in the report.

BTW....Melbourne is a beautiful city.....can I come live with you?????

Off-topic. Melbourne used to be wonderful. It's still a great place to live, however, there's been an increase in violence lately. Ethnic groups with different religions DO NOT mix. Sad, but true. I'm not far from Tullamarine, so I always get to see the big 747 jets on their approach paths, especially in a strong North wind. I'm guessing you would have landed here a few times in your career, so you know that life is still fairly peachy over here.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:19 PM

tezza....I've been thinking about possible ATS 'students' for my Simulator experiment.

NO, I haven't been to Melbourne in the last decade....sorry to hear it's not as nice as I remember....but, I will still try to come visit, regardless!!!!

WW

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:21 PM

Originally posted by HLR53K
I do agree that it's strange that the model added 200 lbs. of fuel. I wonder if the equations were interative?

I'm not sure why the model has done that.

I'm not trying to defend the NIST report at all. I personally think that it's a sham and a cover-up.

I'd be most interested to see how any of the authors would defend the validity of the report by explaining how they can create 200 pounds of jet fuel and destroy 900 pounds of airplane debris. I imagine that they would probably write it off as a clerical/editing error to cover their own tracks.

Anyway, I'm not going to push the point in every post I type here. I'm too busy to sit here typing all day. If people can't figure out for themselves that the NIST report contains critical errors, then there's nothing that I can do for them.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NO, I haven't been to Melbourne in the last decade....sorry to hear it's not as nice as I remember....but, I will still try to come visit, regardless!!!!

Even though I don't agree with most of what you say/think, then I'll say hello to you if you ever touch down nearby. I wouldn't mind hearing some of your aviation stories.

I'm not afraid to show my real face to 'online foes'. My wife knows that if I ever go on the missing list, then they've got me before I got them...

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
don't you think the weight of the antennae on the roof contributed, along with the added weight of the floors above the damage point? (i.e., the impact pont).

Realizing there were static loads there the whole time that were completely designed for (ie not "added weight") is not an explanation as to why the core structure would fail at the exact same time as the perimeter columns, if the initial failure mechanism is the one NIST described.

Do you not realize that fire tends to burn upwards? I'm talking about flames here, of course....lots of JET-A was introduced into the buildings....

I don't see this as an explanation as to why the core was sinking at the exact same time, either. There was no evidence of fire causing major heating to the actual box columns in the core structure, and NIST says this themselves.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by bsbray11
And they have always refused to model the global collapses or offer any insightful information as to how th eyprogressed all the way to the ground in the manner that they did.

It's less than truthful to state that they have refused to model the global collapses.

What do you know about it?

They have stated from the beginning that the global collapses COULD NOT be modelled due to computer limitations. The chaotic nature of the collapse would overwhelm Big Blue, from what I understand.....

Then you don't understand. You even say "They have stated." The complexity and accuracy required of the modeling is relative. As a matter of fact I have even seen for myself an incomplete 3D model of WTC2's collapse initiation from NIST, that was not released in their report but made its way to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice forums through one of their various information requests from NIST. If you really wanted I could probably find it again and take screen shots.

This has never been refuted.

Ha! What is there to refute? Just asserting computers suck too much to model your theory doesn't mean your theory is right. Who has to prove you wrong? There is nothing to refute.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:44 PM

bs....as I recall, the first building hit, was the last to fall.

Again, if memory serves.....the second Tower to be hit, fell first....funny, it was hit at a lower floor......

Please feel free to check my facts......

WW

ps.....the second Tower was hit at a lower floor, than the first.....and it fell first.....hmmmmmmm?????

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:47 PM

Can you tell me specifically what you are replying to from my post and how exactly what you're saying relates?

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 12:04 AM

bs.....from what I observed, that day (11 Sept 2001) an airplane hit one of the WTC Towers. Some minutes later, a second airplane hit the other WTC Tower.

The Tower that was hit second, collapsed before the other one. The zecond Tower was hit lower.....assuiming the fire damage, from the fuel being almost equal....it stands to reason, that the fires, from the atomized fuel, and the compustibles within the building, sustained the fires.

The Second hit collapsed first....because, there was so much weight above the compromised floors.....

The first 'hit' was probably expected to cause the Tower to topple. I think that was the intent......of Atta....

The second arsehole, flying UAL 175, just wanted to try as well to topple the other Tower....he could barely aim at the building, but he aimed low....hoping, I am assuming, to knock it down.

SO....the one that collapsed first, was the one that was hit second, and ilower....understand it yet???

WW

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
it stands to reason, that the fires, from the atomized fuel, and the compustibles within the building, sustained the fires.

I have a problem with the way you're trying to communicate with me. What I was talking about in my last two posts, was how the core structure was supposed to have began falling vertically at the same instant the perimeter columns did. I can't seem to reach that topic with you.

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 12:46 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
Ultima claimed that a lot of people supported him. .

Thats really mature, seems more like trolling.

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Ultima claimed that a lot of people supported him. .

Thats really mature, seems more like trolling.

Yes it was very mature. I was trying to be fair with you and give you the benefit of the doubt. I notice you once again cut and pasted ONLY the parts that make it seem like it would help you prove your point which is deliberately misleading.

Here's the whole quote that you failed to post

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 I understand if you don't want to answer the question.

NOTICE THIS PART ESPECIALLY????????????????
I'm just trying to be fair to ultima

So once again, you picked and chose bits and pieces of facts to deliberately try and change the outcome and make an attempt to support your argument. You should know by now that I would call you on this. I won't tolerate you or anyone else, taking my posts out of context in an attempt to abuse what I've said.

Here's some advice, when you make claims here, people will ask you to back them up/support them. They will ask you to be truthful to the best of your ability. They will expect you to NOT be deliberately deceptive. If you FAIL to hold up these basic standards, people will call you on your post as I and others have and you will have credibility problems.
Just some free advice. Take it or leave it.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by jfj123]

new topics

top topics

10