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: 12
52
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

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.


Oh. my. aching side and body. This is soooooo PfT.

Its a freaking typo.

If that is the best you can come up with to turn back the New World Order and keep the Bu#es from taking over the world, you'd best just lay back and enjoy it.

Having an Internet PfT Google Warrior question the "validity" of the NIST model and the "output analysis" (data output, I am guessing is what you mean) because he found a typo is really hilarious - a new high-water mark for the Troothers.

Seriously. If that is all you have (which is apparently all you have, else you wouldn't harp on it with so much energy), pack it in aussie.

"This proves..." ...all this proves is that a typographical error can work its way through a highly technical and well formulated analytical paper. It also "proves" that the Troothers will stop at nothing....NOTHING, I tell you!...to pull the curtain away from the machine. 200 lbs!!!! My God! He's cracked the code!

Good job, tezz. What's next? Making sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted? Did they use too many commas? Was their/there/they're used properly? Any run-on sentences? I eagerly await your analysis on THOSE crucial 9/11 issues.




posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

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.

Check the alleged plane wreckage distribution in WTC2 according to the NIST model - it also does not sum correctly. Another typo, trebor? That's two errors in two sets of outputs.

How about WTC1, you think that NIST would at least get that one correct? Well, they don't.

Check NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, tables E-4 and E-5. None of the output results sum correctly to the input results for jet fuel and wreckage distribution.

Now, trebor will have you believe that they are all typos. However, more logical and critical thinking will not forgive four typo errors on basic column sums. Logical and critical thinking would question the validity of those simulated results, when the input mass and output mass differs on all four occasions.

In trebor's last post note that he did not provide any jet fuel distribution pattern. All he did was stick by the erroneous NIST report, defending it with its mistakes.

trebor has failed. So, can any other official government story supporter please show how much jet fuel flowed down to the level 50ish floors? How much jet fuel flowed down to the basement and blew out the elevators?



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

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.


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 have no idea why those numbers do not add up. The fact that they are trivial amounts in the grand scheme of things does not matter. I have said before and reiterate that specificity - and accuracy - are the very foundations of credibility.

Having said that, 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. I agree that it is shameful and embarrassing for what appears to be poorly reviewed and proofread basic arithmetical sums in the report, and if you choose to use those examples and proof that the entire 131.3 mb NIST NCSTAR 1-2 report is fake, you right ahead. Truth be known, I have no doubt you would reject the report even without these 4 arithmetical errors - which is what I would expect due to the time-tested Troother inability to take a report such as this at face value.

I do take the report at face value, and I understand that errors can and will be made in many, many, many professional reports, world wide, at every level of business and science and every community in between. While, as I mention earlier, it is shameful and embarrassing, 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.

I apologize for taking so long to reply to this thread but a busy week became busier midweek.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

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

Finally. trebor, the self alleged 25 year career veteran 'civil servant' for the DoD, has admitted that the NIST report is flawed with respect to the jet fuel and wreckage distributions. There's no way that trebor can spin his way out of the obvious, so finally, he's come clean.

The numbers do not sum correctly - they are erroneous.

Now, back to my request for official government story believers who claim that there were multiple jet fueled fires in the towers - which fires were fueled by jet fuel on which floors and by how much jet fuel?

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.

Can any official government story believer help out NIST to correct its errors?


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.

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.

It must be a very bitter pill to swallow for those official government story believers who think that their NIST report is bullet-proof...

Once more, trebor - I have proven that the NIST report is not 100% accurate and contains errors.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

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.

You've answered that question. Thank you for clearing up for what most of us on ATS was an already known fact. Not that there was any doubt...

[edit on 24-10-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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.

Initially, trebor, the self alleged 25 year career veteren 'civil servant' for the DoD, wanted us to believe that the error was a typo.

When I pointed out to trebor that three more similar errors were made, trebor admitted that it was embarrassing and agreed with me that the NIST report contained errors.

Now what trebor is trying to do is to lead us to believe that the errors are only 'minor addition errors'. How does he know this?

Obviously, trebor has very little analytical experience, otherwise he wouldn't dismiss the four errors as being 'minor', when they indicate a possible failure in the model itself.

When the output results do not reconcile with the input paramters, it may suggest that the model was at fault. This is a far more serious error than simple arithmetic mistakes. Was NIST's model, for jet fuel and wreckage dispertion, flawed? The model has failed to produce consistent results on all four occasions.

trebor may down-play this, due to his lack of logical, analytical thinking, perhaps to his peril. Defending a faulty mathematical model wouldn't be a wise choice to make.

It makes you wonder why some official government story believers don't want to reinvestigate 9/11... too many holes for them to cover, perhaps?

Again: Now that I have shown, and trebor has agreed, that the NIST jet fuel dispertion results are erroneous, is there any official government story supporter who is willing to provide more accurate results? trebor has wiped the egg from his face, so he, along with NIST, need your help to provide accurate results.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

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.



Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you serious? Minor math problems do not matter? What was this report supposed to be about? Was it not supposed to explain why the buildings fell when they should not have? The math is just about the most important part. I really hope you are never in charge of designing ANYTHING EVER.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

That's the poor logic that career veteran DoD 'civil servants' like trebor want you to believe, lillydale. They want you to believe that mathematical errors don't matter in a report that's based around mathematical simulations.

trebor really stuffed up when he tried to pass off one error as a 'typo' until I had to point out that his lack of research failed to find the other three errors. At least he admitted that NIST's errors are present in the document, despite his attempt to pass them off as being 'minor'.

We can dismiss the NIST report's authority it has about trying to model the distribution of jet fuel and plane wreckage due to the errors in the results. The official government story believers will need to source some new figures to substantiate their claims about what happened.

Note that none of the official government story believers have tried to answer me with regards to their claims about the quantity of jet fuel in any of the fires... lost without their script, so it seems.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

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.

A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive is the definition of a lie. The individual tezzajw's posted comment above is a false statement he attributes to me.

I have never "admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information". 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.

Nowhere in the previous post or in any previous post did I ever state that the NIST report is an "unreliable" source of information for anything. I stated there should have been better attention to detail and accuracy. I stated that I felt these, even though trivial, were shameful and embarrassing.

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.

Again, I did not state, have never stated and would never state this report was "unreliable". The part of the post the acknowledged liar tezzajw left out was the penultimate paragraph where I clearly stated "I do take the report at face value, and I understand that errors can and will be made in many, many, many professional reports, world wide, at every level of business and science and every community in between."

I also stated, that if the the liar tezzajw wanted to use those examples and proof (.043% of the total report) that the entire 131.3 mb NIST NCSTAR 1-2 report is fake, he could go right ahead. he has chosen to, which only adds to the dearth of credibility in the Troother camp.

The research and science behind the report is solid and staggering, which is why the Troothers will go to such ends - lying included - to try and discredit it.

What's next that you are going to lie and claim I said, tezzajw?



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

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.

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?

(Nice job on the selective quoting, by the way! Well done, leaving off my disclaimer where I was describing the jet fuel distribution in the report! The only way you could make your complaint look like it was valid, was to leave off the part where I mentioned the jet fuel model - which was being discussed over the past few pages. Hilarious.)

In your self alleged 25 years working for the government DoD as a 'civil servant' you should by now know when a report is reliable.


Originally posted by trebor451
I have never "admitted that the NIST report is an unreliable source of information".

When you admit that there are mathematical errors in the NIST report, then the report is unreliable with respect to the model in question. Are you wishing to back out of your admission that the NIST report contains mathematical errors?


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.

The report's output parameters do not match the input values. The model for jet fuel dispersion and wreckage dispersion can not be trusted. It is not simply a matter of the total sum being correct, it is also a matter of the floors that the mass was distributed across. The model can not be trusted and the stated figure of 99.957% is not determinable as a lower bound for accuracy.

Given the model has not produced accurate results, the jet fuel may have been dispersed on more (or less) floors than listed in the table. Furthermore, in this thread there has been some official government story believers who have claimed that jet fuel was present on floors lower than the model predicted. The model may have failed to predict the accuracy of fuel and wreckage across each floor, thus significantly lowering your accuracy claim of 99.957%.

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
Again, I did not state, have never stated and would never state this report was "unreliable".

trebor, the model's results can not be trusted. It is not simply a matter of calculating a small percentage error, when the model can not be relied upon.

I wouldn't expect you to understand this, as you clearly have never had to analyse when and why models fail and what that means in terms of output parameters.

Therefore, you agree that the NIST report contains errors and that it is subsequently unreliable with regards to jet fuel and wreckage distributions.

For you to believe that aspects of a report, containing errors, can be reliable, is absurd and illogical.



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.

Please, do so. I welcome the moderators seeing how you have called me a liar once in italics and then three times in bold. That should be four warnings for you all in one post.

Now can you supply me with an accurate model that represents the dispersion of jet fuel? We both know that the NIST report is unreliable as it contains errors.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Fact 1: The NIST report contains errors with respect to the jet fuel and wreckage dispersions. I pointed this out with table references.

Fact 2: trebor admitted that Fact 1 is correct after initially trying to pass off one error as being a 'typo', until it was pointed out to him that all of the results are erroneous.

Fact 3: A report that contains output errors can not be relied upon. Therefore the NIST model for jet fuel and wreckage dispersion is not reliable.

Fact 4: In this thread, no official government story believer has been able to supply me with any accurate, reliable measures for how the jet fuel was dispersed in WTC1 and WTC2.

Need I go on, trebor, or will you continue to use selective quoting to try and make a case against me, while attacking my reputation and good stead on ATS, by calling me a liar multiple times?

We both agree that due to the errors in the tables, the jet fuel dispersion figures, provided by NIST, are unreliable.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 

Casual readers, please note that in trebor's mostly off-topic post (where he again called me a liar and accused me of being a P4T Rep), how he still avoided supplying me with accurate, reliable figures for the dispersion of jet fuel within the towers.

He is using spin and diversion to avoid supplying facts about the jet fuel.

trebor has agreed with me that the jet fuel dispersion figures are wrong in the NIST report and that it is unreliable because of those errors. Afterall, logical, intelligent people would not consider an erroneous report reliable, when they know it contains multiple output errors.

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.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Bumped


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]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Casual readers, please note that in trebor's mostly off-topic bumped post (where he again called me a liar and accused me of being a P4T Rep), how he still avoided supplying me with accurate, reliable figures for the dispersion of jet fuel within the towers.

He is using spin and diversion to avoid supplying facts about the jet fuel.

trebor has agreed with me that the jet fuel dispersion figures are wrong in the NIST report and that it is unreliable because of those errors. Afterall, logical, intelligent people would not consider an erroneous report reliable, when they know it contains multiple output errors.

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.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

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.


OK. You´re asking 2 questions here:
How much fuel was dispersed? and:
Where was it dispersed?

This is info. from the North Tower. AA 11, a Boeing 767.

""The aircraft was carrying approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
At impact, the aircraft was banked 25° to the left, cutting a gash that was over half the width of the building and extended from the 93 to 99th floor.

When the plane crashed into the building, approximately 30% of the jet fuel burned off immediately in the fireballs, and roughly half of the jet fuel remained unburned beyond the initial impact and fires.

Jet fuel was sent pouring down elevator and utility shafts, causing fires and injuries on lower floors. Port Authority police and FDNY members on the scene saw people seriously burned and enveloped in flames, from a fireball at concourse level, as well as through the lobby of the North Tower. 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?





posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

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?

No, rush, it is far from satisfactory.

If you haven't already done so, please read the erroneous and unreliable NIST report about the dispersion of the jet fuel in WTC 1 and WTC 2. trebor agrees with me that the results are in error, so therefore the model is unreliable. You'll note that trebor sheepishly admitted that the NIST report contains these errors and that he tried to use some spin and deflection to defend the erroneous model.

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.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

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.


Now you´re asking for something that no one can provide. (I think.)
An exact amount of fuel that dispersed, and where exactly?
It could be roughly estimated I guess, but no one could give you the exact amount.
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.
Your phrase:
""the percentage volume of jet fuel is miniscule in terms of the volume of a tower.""
I think is somewhat misleading. You seem to try to underestimate the potential of damage and destruction of the jetfuel using the reference to the volume of the whole tower.
(What does that have to do with anything?)
A fire that starts from a cigarette can burn down a whole building, can it not? Fire propagates, and if you have Jet-fuel, that´s a lot worse.




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

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?

NIST was given the task to investigate the WTC incidents. NIST had a model to simulate the distribution of the jet fuel. The results were not consistent with the inputs. They were erroneous, the reliability of the model can not be trusted. trebor agrees with me that the results are erroneous, therefore, it is not logical to accept that the model was reliable.


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.

Well, no. If you don't know how much jet fuel made it to any particular shaft, then how do you know it would do any damage? You don't even know if the alleged jet fuel that 'flowed' down any shaft ignited or not.

Was it 1 mL of jet fuel? 1 L of jet fuel? Which shaft?

If you can not quantify the amount of jet fuel that was allegedly spread in the tower then you can not assume to know how much damage it would do.

With the failure of the NIST report to provide an accurate and reliable distrbution of the jet fuel, there are no other reliable measures for how much jet fuel flowed anywhere or what damage it allegedly caused.

I've read some claims by some official government story believers that jet fuel was responsible for the explosions in the basements. But again, this is completely unsubstantiated. It's nothing more than an unproven myth.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Yes tezzajw, the logically-challenged do have some rather peculiar "quirks." I'm waiting with "bated breath" for yet another rant about "Camp springs one, rush hour, P56, PfffT," etc. My observations indicate that I won't be disappointed anytime soon.

Back more on-topic- so have any of the "plane experts" contributed anything other than the typical, possibly-scripted rants about "Cap'n Bob" to this thread so far, or did I miss that part somewhere in these 12 pages?



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join