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: 11
52
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
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.


Didnt you link that information yourself? Unless you think I work for some gov't agency that was involved in the investigation and i'm secretly hiding that information from you, I dont understand why you would ask me that.



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.


with a less than 0.5% error. Wasnt this the fuel estimates you just asked me for in your first sentence?




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Didnt you link that information yourself? Unless you think I work for some gov't agency that was involved in the investigation and i'm secretly hiding that information from you, I dont understand why you would ask me that.

I ask you that because you make claims about the jet fuelled fires in the towers without providing any evidence for them.


Originally posted by gavron
with a less than 0.5% error. Wasnt this the fuel estimates you just asked me for in your first sentence?

These are calculation from the NIST algorithms. There should be no error, gavron. The fact that you can't understand that is quite telling. The amount of jet fuel in the plane should have been tallied across the floor distribution, without error.

You have avoided providing me the data for jet fuelled fires, why?

The NIST report has a 200 pound error in the report that describes the fuel spreading across 8 floors for WTC2.

If you wish to claim that there were jet fuelled fires on other floors, then please show me how much fuel was involved.

You've been caught out making claims that you can't substantiate, gavron. Your own NIST report let you down, especially with that 200 pound error.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

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


You mean the liited damage casued by the planes? nlessyu think q 100 tone plane is going to do a lot of damage to a 100,000 tone building.


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


Well you are wrong again, must get tiresome being wrong so much on so many things.

Here is one for now.

911research.wtc7.net...
The oxygen-starved fires likely remained below 400 degrees C, and would be harmless to the steel frame even in the absence of insulation. There is no evidence that the fires ever damaged the core structures. Note that softening of steel by high temperatures is reversible, and that steel is a good conductor of heat. If any structural steel had lost strength in the first minutes of the fires, it would have regained most of it as the fires cooled after consuming the jet fuel.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2
You mean the liited damage casued by the planes? nlessyu think q 100 tone plane is going to do a lot of damage to a 100,000 tone building.


can you please re-state that sentence in English, please?



Here is one for now.

911research.wtc7.net...


Nice conspiracy site link. They wouldnt be baised now, would they



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I ask you that because you make claims about the jet fuelled fires in the towers without providing any evidence for them.
Nope, No evidence whatsoever. Those planes used no fuel at all.



You have avoided providing me the data for jet fuelled fires, why?


Since you posted the answer to your own question....again. If you have a problem with the less than 0.5% error...then perhaps you can contact the gov't and get a more accurate number.

I find it funny that you seem to think I have access to more information than the normal public. Where do you think I work....the NSA?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
can you please re-state that sentence in English, please?


Sorry need to get a new keyboard.

A 100 ton plane is not going to do a lot of damage to 100,000 ton building.


Nice conspiracy site link. They wouldnt be baised now, would they


Speaking of baised you mean like the governmet piad NIST links you provide?

Well i figured you would not accept facts and evidnece as usual but i have lot more that anyone can see the facts and evidence.

jnocook.net...
According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be



[edit on 17-10-2009 by PHIXER2]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Well i figured you would not accept facts and evidnece as usual but i have lot more that anyone can see the facts and evidence.

jnocook.net...
According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be


The first sentence at the link you provided:

"The following is an essay on the possible causes of the World Trade Center collapse and possible means to prevent similar occurrences."

An essay...



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2

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


You mean the liited damage casued by the planes? nlessyu think q 100 tone plane is going to do a lot of damage to a 100,000 tone building.


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


Well you are wrong again, must get tiresome being wrong so much on so many things.

Here is one for now.

911research.wtc7.net...
The oxygen-starved fires likely remained below 400 degrees C, and would be harmless to the steel frame even in the absence of insulation. There is no evidence that the fires ever damaged the core structures. Note that softening of steel by high temperatures is reversible, and that steel is a good conductor of heat. If any structural steel had lost strength in the first minutes of the fires, it would have regained most of it as the fires cooled after consuming the jet fuel.





You really cant use that comparison that a 100 ton plane is insignificant to a couple hundred thousand ton building.
Recall WWII in the Pacific. A 3-10 ton aircraft of wood and steel managed to sink ships that weighed as much as 10,000 tons.
Recall a large hunk of ice sunk the Titanic. A bullet can kill a person. How much does a bullet weigh in comparison to a human? Such a small bullet can take down a grown man. So no, size has nothing to do with it.

Jet fuel was not the only thing burning. Did you forget the fact that after the impacts, the fires grew and spread? How was that? Recall the office supplies, carpeting, furniture, computers, paper, etc etc etc all inside. Office place fires can easily reach temps necessary to compromise steel. By god its in the firecodes and understood in the firefighting world and fire safety. and its only in the disinformation world of the so-called "truthers" that the fires were cool and oxygen deprived. That is the biggest lie and biggest load of hooey ever. Its been proven to be false millions of times, and yet it still resurfaces as a "fact". Its not. Spreading disinfo is wrong.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PHIXER2
 





A 100 ton plane is not going to do a lot of damage to 100,000 ton building.


Like the same way a 1/3 oz of metal cant kill you?

Accelerate it to 800 fps and will do lot of damage - same thing with
airplane at 540 mph (800 fps) does to the building systems .

The plane slashed open the building and damaged many of the support
columns and floor trusses. The impact destroyed the elevators preventing
FF from reaching the affected floors - ever try to hike up 80-90 floors
wearing full FF gear? Did it in 10 story building and was exhausted

Impact smashed the sprinkler and standpipes preventing any control or
extinguishment of the resulting fires. It also blew off the fireproofing
materials from the steelwork exposing it to heat from the fires.

Sorry to puncture your little conspiracy fantasy.....



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Recall WWII in the Pacific. A 3-10 ton aircraft of wood and steel managed to sink ships that weighed as much as 10,000 tons.


Are you talking about aircraft like this that had a bomb or torpedo that actaully went through the ship and sunk it. IT WAS NOT THE PLANE ITSELF THAT SUNK THE SHIP.

i114.photobucket.com...

If you are talking other normal aircraft they had fuel and bombs on board to sink ships. IT WAS NOT THE PLANE ITSELF THAT SUNK THE SHIP.


Jet fuel was not the only thing burning. Did you forget the fact that after the impacts, the fires grew and spread? .


But if you read the official story it states that large jet fuel fires were on lower floors but the firefighters did not see any large jet fuel fires or any major flires on the lower floors on the way up to the 78t floor.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Originally posted by GenRadek
Recall WWII in the Pacific. A 3-10 ton aircraft of wood and steel managed to sink ships that weighed as much as 10,000 tons.


Are you talking about aircraft like this that had a bomb or torpedo that actaully went through the ship and sunk it. IT WAS NOT THE PLANE ITSELF THAT SUNK THE SHIP.

i114.photobucket.com...

If you are talking other normal aircraft they had fuel and bombs on board to sink ships. IT WAS NOT THE PLANE ITSELF THAT SUNK THE SHIP.


I was referring to the Zero, the Betty, the Betty, the Val, aircraft used by the Japanese. I didn't forget the bomb/s on the aircraft though. You also forget the power of the 767 fuel tanks when they blew up inside the WTC. My how we have selective memory. It wasn't JUST the plane, it was the load it was carrying. Just like the kamikaze Zero with a bomb aimed at an escort carrier, a 767 with a large load of fuel aiming at the WTC with high speed, you have a large destructive device ready for deliberate destruction and death.




Jet fuel was not the only thing burning. Did you forget the fact that after the impacts, the fires grew and spread? .


But if you read the official story it states that large jet fuel fires were on lower floors but the firefighters did not see any large jet fuel fires or any major flires on the lower floors on the way up to the 78t floor.



Nope if YOU read the NIST report, it states clearly that the jet fuel is what STARTED the fires. After slashing through and igniting everything on the impacted floors, the fires grew as they consumed the upper floors and the flammable materials normally found in an office tower. The firefighters that reported on the small fires only reached the lowest floor to be impacted. Of course this would have seen the least amount of fire and damage. Had the firefighters been able too go up to the higher floors, they would have witnessed an inferno. The only places there was actual fire below the impacted floors, were in the elevator shafts, just after the impact. Any small amount of jet fuel that may have found a way below the 78th floor would have burned itself out if it wasnt in contact with any major areas of combustible materials. However, fires have a tendency to spread UP. Which is why the fires were so large and hot a few floors above the impacted floors.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Forget it.

He got banned again.




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by tezzajw
I ask you that because you make claims about the jet fuelled fires in the towers without providing any evidence for them.
Nope, No evidence whatsoever. Those planes used no fuel at all.


Give it up, Gavron. Some members of this august forum are unable to grasp even the basics of logic in this discussion, much less discuss it. This thread being a classic example - the fact that large, passenger-carrying airliners do not operate on air alone. To ask for - repeatedly - "data for jet fuelled fire" in a crash scenario that involved a Boeing 767 aircraft with over 30 tons of jet fuel in them is not only absurd, but it begs the question of how intellectually mature is the questioner?


Originally posted by tezzajw

You have avoided providing me the data for jet fuelled fires, why?


To take his query to its logical conclusion (i.e. "there is no data for any jet fueled fires that I will accept from you, ergo there were no jet fueled fires) makes him a no-planer, and no-planers are, really, nothing but the comic relief in this whole thing, along with the Hologram people and the missile people and the space-based-Super-Destructo-Beam people.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


I guess now we have a "new discovery." A new "smoking gun."

THE UNFUELED AIRLINERS.

Until somebody can provide proof, those planes didn´t carry fuel.
How they flew? Probably some secret technology we ignore.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
To take his query to its logical conclusion (i.e. "there is no data for any jet fueled fires that I will accept from you, ergo there were no jet fueled fires) makes him a no-planer, and no-planers are, really, nothing but the comic relief in this whole thing, along with the Hologram people and the missile people and the space-based-Super-Destructo-Beam people.

If you follow trebor's logic, then anything is possible. He's demonstrated in many other threads how poor his logical thinking skills are. Consider his above paragraph and the tale he's telling... it's not worth the effort to comment on his false narrative.

trebor fails to understand that there is an official government model for the spread of jet fuel. It is present in the NIST report. I posted the table from the NIST report and showed that there is a 200 pound error. This proves that the report was not edited or checked for its validity. Some official government story supporters have hand-waved this as being a small error. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge that it is an error which should not have been present in the final report. It undermines any perceived authority that the NIST report tries to claim.

The NIST report fails to error check, which leads one to question the validity of the model and the output analysis of the model.

The same jet fuel dispersion model does not show any jet fuel initially present any lower than Floor 77. Therefore, how can jet fuel be present in floors around the 50ish mark or lower?

If the jet fuel flowed dowanwards, to start some fires - then what quantity did so? To which floors did it flow? Which elevator shafts did it flow down?

All one needs to do is to read beyond the avoidance, dodging, spinning and defelction of the governmet story believers to see that none of them have been able to state how much jet fuel was present on any floor.

Considering their failure, it is highly ilogical for them to claim that any particular fire in the tower was igited by flowing jet fuel, when they can not conclusively state how much jet fuel was present below Floor 77.

Once more, for any official government story supporter - besides the erroneous NIST table for jet fuel dispersion, can any of you provide data for how much jet fuel was present throughout the tower?

If not, your claims are unsubstantiated. You don't know how much jet fuel there was to start any fire. Some fires may have been started by jet fuel, but which ones?

[edit on 19-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



Originally posted by tezzajw
Some fires may have been started by jet fuel, but which ones?


So you are saying there were arsonists in the WTC towers then, setting fires not related to the air crash at all?

[edit on 19-10-2009 by gavron]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So you are saying there were arsonists in the WTC towers then, setting fires not related to the air crash at all?

gavron proves that he can't keep up with the thread.

No, gavron, I'm not stating that at all.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, gavron, I'm not stating that at all.


But you had just stated this:



Originally posted by tezzajw
Some fires may have been started by jet fuel, but which ones?


So, if fires were not started by jet fuel, how were they started, Tezza? Someone taking advantage of the situation and setting fires in both towers?

Please, I'd like you to explain...


edit: fix spelling...not enough caffeine in system yet this morning.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by gavron]



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join