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.
Originally posted by tezzajw
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.
Originally posted by trebor451
Its a freaking typo.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by trebor451
Its a freaking typo.
trebor, a self alleged 25 year 'civil servant' for the DoD has claimed that it's a typo. It would be the simple explanation for the simple beliefs of the official government story believers.
How many typos should you expect to find within the NIST report? There should be none.
Originally posted by trebor451
I stand corrected and I agree with you - from a professional point of view, there should have been better attention to detail and accuracy in the NIST report.
I agree that it is shameful and embarrassing for what appears to be poorly reviewed and proofread basic arithmetical sums in the report
Originally posted by trebor451
your next step, if you believe that the shoddy typsesetting/transcription/addition/whatever is proof that the entire report is wrong, is to prove the rest of that report wrong.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Completely false logic, trebor. Which is commonplace for you.
I have already proven that part of the NIST report is wrong. I make no claims about the report as a whole, however I have proven there are false aspects to the NIST report.
Originally posted by trebor451
As I said in my prior post, rational people can understand things like that can and do happen and the quality of the research and science is what the report is about - not minor addition errors.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by tezzajw
Completely false logic, trebor. Which is commonplace for you.
I have already proven that part of the NIST report is wrong. I make no claims about the report as a whole, however I have proven there are false aspects to the NIST report.
As I said in my prior post, rational people can understand things like that can and do happen and the quality of the research and science is what the report is about - not minor addition errors. It is up to you if you want to be rational.
Originally posted by the demonstrated liar tezzajw
trebor has admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information...
Originally posted by tezzajw
trebor has admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information, with regards to the jet fuel distribution, as it contains mathematical errors.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by the demonstrated liar tezzajw
trebor has admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information...
I have not seen any retraction of the above statement by the individual tezzajw in the time since it was posted.
Originally posted by trebor451
I have never "admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information".
Originally posted by trebor451
I stated that specificity - and accuracy - are the very foundations of credibility. The report is incredibly specific and 99.957% accurate, according to the liar tezzajw's claims. That, in my book, makes this report not only quite reliable but quite credible and quite accurate as well.
Originally posted by trebor451
Again, I did not state, have never stated and would never state this report was "unreliable".
Originally posted by trebor451
As such I have alerted the Mods on the lie you posted with that statement. If the Mods have a shred of integrity they will act on this.
Originally posted by tezzajw
trebor has confirmed that the NIST report contains errors with respect to the jet fuel distribution. A report with errors is not reliable.
trebor, why should I retract that?
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
trebor has admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information, with regards to the jet fuel distribution, as it contains mathematical errors.
Furthemore, the last time that I stated that someone was a liar on ATS, I was warned and lost 500 points. I hope that you don't suffer the same fate, trebor after you have quite clearly called me a liar.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by tezzajw
trebor has confirmed that the NIST report contains errors with respect to the jet fuel distribution. A report with errors is not reliable.
trebor, why should I retract that?
Because you clearly and with a reckless disregard for the truth attributed something to me that I did not say, utter or post.
I'll point out the definition of a lie again, this time with 2 additional examples:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
When you stated, and I quote:
trebor has admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information, with regards to the jet fuel distribution, as it contains mathematical errors.
I never admitted *anything* of the sort, and your claiming that I did say that is a 1) false statement, 2) made as a deliberate intent to deceive, 3) an intentional untruth, 4) a falsehood, 5) something that conveys a false impression, 6) an inaccurate and false statement.
Now I don't know about Australia, but in the rest of the world those 6 examples clearly point out that you lied about what i said by attributing something to me that i did not say.
You can interpret the NIST report however you like. You and the other PfT reps here on ATS have a demonstrated and clear track record of misinterpreting and misrepresenting a whole host of issues regarding not only the aeronautical elements of 9/11 but a wide variety of 9/11 related topics, as well - the Camp Springs 1 departure, aircraft flight around P-56, the departure of Gopher 06, the "rush hour traffic" into KDCA, the speed capabilities and structural integrity of a 7X7 aircraft, the April Gallop lawsuit, the "standown" of non-existent surface to air missiles at the Pentagon, and even now, the inability to understand the relative merits and capabilities of radar altimeters and barometric altimeters in the low altitude, high speed environment.
Again, I could care less how you interpret the NIST report. You do not, however, attribute or ascribe specific words or pharses or positions or interpretations to me that I a) do not hold and b) have never stated, uttered or posted.
Furthemore, the last time that I stated that someone was a liar on ATS, I was warned and lost 500 points. I hope that you don't suffer the same fate, trebor after you have quite clearly called me a liar.
I am not surprised about that with your demonstrated inability to understand what a lie is.
And yes, when you willingly and without retraction attribute a statement or comment to me that I never made, that is a classic and perfect case of a lie.
You can either retract the statement or continue on in this forum with the knowledge that you are a proven and demonstrated liar.
This is not a case of mis-identification of a quote or a statement. This is not a simple mix-up of comments. This is an example, again, of you willingly and without retraction attribute a statement or comment to me that I never made. You didn't say "Trebor seems to think..." or "Trebor would have us think..." or "Trebor whatever..." You stated, clearly and without reservation, that I "...admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information, with regards to the jet fuel distribution, as it contains mathematical errors."
1) I did not admit anything of that sort
2) I did not state anything along the lines of "unreliable"
3) Nowhere in that post did I ever even type the word "unreliable" or even "reliable".
Again, and I cannot understate this belief, when you attribute your own interpretation of, in this case, a document to me and you do it with the express intent to deceive the other readers here on ATS by conveying the belief that I a) said that and/or believe that, that is a lie.
The Internet in general and discussion fora in specific are famous for individuals playing fast and loose with the truth. Like it or not, that is the very nature of this medium. There is little accountability or official retribution that can be meted out when things like that happen.
In this case, however, if ATS is to maintain any sort of credibility in this online environment, they need to ensure that at least a bare modicum of intellectual integrity is present here and something needs to be done about the blatant and willing lying of one of its members against another.
[edit on 25-10-2009 by trebor451]
Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by trebor451
What more will it take for any government story believer to show how much jet fuel was dispersed and where it was dispersed? The NIST report published unreliable figures in relation to the jet fuel, so you can't use that to try and convince me of anything. I can't believe the unreliable model that NIST has used and neither should you.
Originally posted by rush969
Jet fuel was sent pouring down elevator and utility shafts, causing fires and injuries on lower floors. Jet fuel also started fires on the B4 level of the North Tower, when a fireball came down the elevator shaft to the basement levels.""
Is that a good enough answer?
Originally posted by tezzajw
How much jet fuel poured down which particular elevator shafts?
It appears as though some official government story believers want people to believe that there was a torrent of jet fuel flowing throughout the entire towers. This can not be so, when the percentage volume of jet fuel is miniscule in terms of the volume of a tower.
You haven't provided me with any accurate numerical quantity for where the jet fuel was dispersed. Your quote only supplied unverifiable amounts of alleged jet fuel allegedly starting some fires.
Originally posted by rush969
Now you´re asking for something that no one can provide. (I think.)
An exact amount of fuel that dispersed, and where exactly?
Originally posted by rush969
However, I believe we can all understand, using our common sense, that whatever amount of fuel that made it into the shafts and ignited would certainly have great potential for big damage.