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.

 

To our forum plane experts - shame on you.

page: 10
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Goodness....wonder how that could happen?

Please, tell me how it did happen.

Here's a clip from your NIST report. I'll give you a clue - the numbers don't add up. Try it yourself.

NIST can't get its own facts right about the alleged jet fuel dispersion, so I don't expect you to do any better.



Page 85-86.
Total outside tower:10,600 lbs
WTC 2 floor 77: 1,300 lbs
WTC 2 floor 78: 6,200 lbs
WTC 2 floor 79: 11,400 lbs
WTC 2 floor 80: 6,000 lbs
WTC 2 floor 81: 14,400 lbs
WTC 2 floor 82: 10,600 lbs
WTC 2 floor 83: 1,500 lbs
WTC 2 floor 84: 200 lbs
Total fuel weight: 62,000 lbs




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
tezzajw,

Did you see my post about the open discussion?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2
tezzajw,

Did you see my post about the open discussion?


Yeah, a quick glimpse. I'll check it out later on. Too busy watching gavron trying to sum the NIST jet fuel figures now...

I want to see if he scores a 200 pound error, like I did. I can't believe that people paid for a numerically incorrect report.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I want to see if he scores a 200 pound error, like I did. I can't believe that people paid for a numerically incorrect report.


Do you know the pound to gallon conversion, i do if you need it.

I had to do it as a crew chief in the Air Force.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PLEASE...
Let´s remember we have video footage of the final moments of each of the towers.
Even though we are all familiar with the report by some of the firemen that were climbing the tower, when they said they needed a couple of lines (if I recall correctly) to put out some fires that they had found.
You must remember they were only starting to get to the most affected area and there were bigger fires higher up.
If you look at the videos in the final moments as I mention, you can clearly see the fires were burning out of control from were the planes had crashed upwards.
To take that description of the fire man at that location as the “WHOLE PICTURE” of the fires is naive to say the least.
This was not a diagnose of the fire situation of the whole tower. It was only something they had stumbled upon. “Truthers” have taken this report by the fireman exactly in that way, as if he was describing all the fire that was left in the building. Not correct.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by rush969]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
If you look at the videos in the final moments as I mention, you can clearly see the fires were burning out of control from were the planes had crashed upwards.


Well you are wrong on a few things.

1. The official story states there were large jet fuel fires on the lower floors and the burning jet fuel had made it to the basement. The firefighters transcrpt from ladder 15 in the South tower proves this wrong.

2. Actually the fires were burning out before the collapse as even the link Gavron posted states about how the fires were oxygen starved and going out.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2
2. Actually the fires were burning out before the collapse as even the link Gavron posted states about how the fires were oxygen starved and going out.



Oh really? Please show us the quote in the link I provided that said fires were oxygen starved?

Actually, there are statements to the contrary.

Did you even bother to read my link, Roger?


Oh, tezza...sorry, I guess a less than 0.5% error means there was no fuel.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Oh, tezza...sorry, I guess a less than 0.5% error means there was no fuel.

gavron, you threw the NIST report at me. I pointed out the numerical error in it and you just shrug it off.

Do you realise that the NIST report also stuffed up the alleged distribution of airplane wreckage as well?

How can you hold faith in a report that contains basic numerical errors that should have been edited and checked before publication?

Again, you have failed to show me the jet fuel distribution that you believe started the fires that you alleged were present across multiple floors of the towers.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Oh really? Please show us the quote in the link I provided that said fires were oxygen starved?


Gee you really ned to read your own links you post. So fun and easy to prove you wrong with your own link

Quoted from section 2.5

"The burning of the jet fuel consumed much of the oxygen within the 94th and 96th floors."

"The oxygen-starved fires burned down"



[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezza,

umm...do you think I was part of the investigative team for 911? You ask me for reports as if I worked at the NSA or something.

You have access to the exact same reports that the entire public has access to. There are some reports not yet released, FBI report for example, but most other data is out there.

Just because you get your underwear in a wad over a less than 0.5% possibly typo....does that mean that me, a fellow forum member, will have more exact numbers?

edit: Removed comment that questioned where logic was coming from.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
You have access to the exact same reports that the entire public has access to. There are some reports not yet released, FBI report for example, but most other data is out there.


Yes most other data is out there and you refuse to accept that a lot of it goes against the official story.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
You have access to the exact same reports that the entire public has access to. There are some reports not yet released, FBI report for example, but most other data is out there.

You mean that I have the same access to the error filled reports that others do.

I have asked you for the data and you've failed to produce it, gavron. Now, you're deflecting, avoiding and generally trying to steer away from your claims about the jet fuelled fires that you allege were in the towers.


Originally posted by gavron
I think you need another hit on that pipe you're passing around...

Drug references are banned on ATS.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2


Gee you really ned to read your own links you post. So fun and easy to prove you wrong with your own link

Quoted from section 2.5

"The burning of the jet fuel consumed much of the oxygen within the 94th and 96th floors."

"The oxygen-starved fires burned down"



[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]


Poor, Roger,

Cherry picking sentences again. Why does the whole paragraph scare you, Roger? Hmmm? Are you afraid to post it?

Allow me..
"The oxygen starved fires died down, but did not quite go out. Within the first 2 min after the impact, fires could be seen in the north side windows on the 93rd thru 97th floors, the 96th floor of the south face, and the 94th floor of the east face. As fresh air entered the perforated facades, there began the steady burning of the office furnishings and the 13 tons of combustibles from the aircraft that would eventually overwhelm the already damaged building."

Shall I go on?

Please...I can embarrass you further if you like.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Gavron is going to be upset now that i used his own link to prove the fires were oxygen starved.

Not to mention several other reports from fire experts and engineeers that state the fires were oxygen starved.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


ok, tezza you are right then.

there were no fires in the towers, which are still standing today.


Originally posted by gavron
I think you need another hit on that pipe you're passing around...


Drug references are banned on ATS.


I apologize. for the drug reference, and will remove the reference. I'm just trying to understand how you are coming to some of your conclusions, and they are not making sense.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   


Not to mention several other reports from fire experts and engineeers that state the fires were oxygen starved.


Do these reports go on to say the fires continued, and grew to eventually overwhelm the already damaged building? I believe the post I linked states that as well.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Gavron i have alreay embarrassed you when i showed you cannot post evidence asked for and i can post lots more facts and evidnece then you to suport what i post.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
I apologize. for the drug reference, and will remove the reference. I'm just trying to understand how you are coming to some of your conclusions, and they are not making sense.
[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]

You stated that there were jet fuelled fires through the towers. You have failed to show me how much jet fuel was present as an ignition source.

You linked me to the NIST report, which I had already read and I showed you where the maths was flawed and that the distribution of jet fuel does not add up.

Your claims have not been proven - they make no sense.

You still void showing me how much jet fuel was present at each of the fires that you claim was ignited by jet fuel. NIST can't even do it properly!



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Do these reports go on to say the fires continued, and grew to eventually overwhelm the already damaged building? I believe the post I linked states that as well.


Do i really have to prove you wrong even more then i already have?

I have tons of videos, photos and reports that state that the fires were buring out before the collapse from beiing oxygen starved.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PHIXER2
 


Again....do they state like the report I linked....where the fires eventually overwhelmed the already damaged building?

Looks to be what it states in that report. Please, link those reports....I'd be interested.




top topics



 
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join