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: 9
52
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
edit: It answers your questions too, tezza.
...unless you think the fires were started by carelessly left campfires.

No, it does not anwer my questions.

Prove to me how much jet fuel flowed to the specific floors that you're claiming there were jet fueled fires.

You haven't answered my question. How many of those people were capable of discerning that any fire started was caused by jet fuel.

All you have done, gavron, is to wave your hands. Be specific and tell me how much jet fuel flowed to the fires on the specific floors.




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Perhaps you need to read the NIST report , NCSTAR1.

This link sums it up nicely:



1. The link does not state amount of fuel it would take to get to the elevators and how much was soaked in the carpet and furnishings. It also agrees with the fact that a large amount of the fuel was consumed in the intial explosion and burned off quickly.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
... Be specific and tell me how much jet fuel flowed to the fires on the specific floors.


Thats the silliest question I think I've ever seen posted on these forums.

Do you honest expect anyone could possibly have that answer?

That like asking how many drops of blood (in ml) were vaporized when Kennedy was shot (be specific)....or how much water was actually IN the Titanic prior to it sinking (to the nearest pint).






posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2
It also agrees with the fact that a large amount of the fuel was consumed in the intial explosion and burned off quickly.



umm......15% is a large amount at the NSA?



edit: The report says well over half remained in the building. 15% burned off outside building in explosion.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Thats the silliest question I think I've ever seen posted on these forums.

Do you honest expect anyone could possibly have that answer?


So again you have proven you cannot supply the evidence asked for.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Thats the silliest question I think I've ever seen posted on these forums.

You probably think it is silly because you can't answer it with any accuracy, nor link a report to it.

If you think that jet fuel flowed all over the building, then please produce the report that shows this.

According to some official government story believers, the whole tower was a jet-fuel-filled sponge.

People saw fires in the buildings - but it doesn't mean that every single one of those fires was ignited by burning jet fuel.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PHIXER2
 


Nobody can answer those questions, Roger.

Any answer would be theory at best.

An NSA analyst would know that...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
umm......15% is a large amount at the NSA?


You might wat to read your own link.

It states 15% inside up to 25% outside and that the rest burned off quckly.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
If you think that jet fuel flowed all over the building, then please produce the report that shows this.


Perhaps you are not familiar with the NIST reports.

I believe that will have the answers you are looking for.



According to some official government story believers, the whole tower was a jet-fuel-filled sponge.


Please link a source that compares the tower to a jet-fuel-filled sponge.



People saw fires in the buildings - but it doesn't mean that every single one of those fires was ignited by burning jet fuel.


Were there reports of arsonist on other floors at the time of the plane impacts?!? Wow, what a coincidence.

How else were the fires started then? Or were they holographic fires...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron Nobody can answer those questions, Roger.

Any answer would be theory at best.

An NSA analyst would know that...


You should know that too but you keep on insisting you know everything that happened.

And yes most people on here post theories since they, like you do not really know what happened that day.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2
It states 15% inside up to 25% outside and that the rest burned off quckly.


Good thing that office wasnt filled with anything else that could burn when exposed to flame.

....oh wait.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Perhaps you are not familiar with the NIST reports.
I believe that will have the answers you are looking for.

Do you mean the same NIST reports that incorrectly sum the jet fuel and damage distributions in the towers?

Yeah, I've read those.


How else were the fires started then? Or were they holographic fires...

It's your story, you tell me.

You're making the claim that there were jet fuelled fires in the building on different levels. Yet you can't tell me where any of them were? Lame...



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Nobody can answer those questions, Roger.
Any answer would be theory at best.

If no one can answer those questions, then how can you promote the idea that there were jet fuelled fires throughout the towers?

You can't have it both ways, gavron. Either you know how much jet started fires in specific locations, or you don't know.

You've admitted that you don't know, therefore all you are doing is speculating about where you think there were jet fuelled fires.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


So...Tezza.

Tell us what caused the fires then? Since the planes obviously had nothing to do with it in your theory...

Please, we'd all like to hear your side.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Good thing that office wasnt filled with anything else that could burn when exposed to flame.

....oh wait.


Your own link states that 15% was burned off inside the building, that up to 25% was burned off outside the building.

So if you do the math hat does not leave a lot of fule left to get to the elevators and down to the basement on floors that are so large.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Tell us what caused the fires then? Since the planes obviously had nothing to do with it in your theory...

I don't know what caused all of the fires. I'm not making claims about them.

It's your story that they were caused by jet fuel, yet you can't tell me which ones or how much jet fuel was involved.

All you've done is speculate, without producing any evidence for your claims.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Your own link states that 15% was burned off inside the building, that up to 25% was burned off outside the building.

So if you do the math hat does not leave a lot of fule left to get to the elevators and down to the basement on floors that are so large.



60%.....nah, thats not much. It's only a majority of the fuel.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't know what caused all of the fires. I'm not making claims about them.


So, fires just mysteriously appear after planes fly into a building.

Goodness....wonder how that could happen?




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

60%.....nah, thats not much. It's only a majority of the fuel.


Gee you really do not evev understand your own link.

Please tell us out of that 60% how much was burned off in 10 to 15 minutes and how much would it take to get to the basement.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So, fires just mysteriously appear after planes fly into a building.

Goodness....wonder how that could happen?



You should be telling us since you now what happened from the offical reports.

Oh thats right that have not been released yet.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join