To our forum plane experts - shame on you.

reply to post by tezzajw


The problem here (I think) is that you´re holding on to "one" erroneous figure in a calculation, or transcript but you´re refusing to accept the facts. Again:

""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. At 8:47 a.m., WTC security reported a fire on the 22nd floor.""

What is described above HAPPENED!!! How many liters of jetfuel were neded exactly, and on what floor, and what shaft, we can only guess.
But I think we should agree there was more than enough. As I said before, it´s common sense.
If you can´t accept these facts, then I guess you´re proposing a new conspiracy theory of "provoked fires" with other means than jetfuel. Or maybe "stored jetfuel" at strategic points of the towers to be set on fire at the required time.
Would this be correct?

Originally posted by rush969
The problem here (I think) is that you´re holding on to "one" erroneous figure in a calculation, or transcript but you´re refusing to accept the facts.

The problem here is that you assume that it is 'one' eroneous figure, when in fact it is four (all of them). trebor agrees with me on this. Both the jet fuel and wreckage distributions for each tower are wrong. The model is unreliable. I refuse to accept the results of a model that is wrong. Most logical people would do the same.

Originally posted by rush969
""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.

Unsubstantiated. Again, if you can not quantify how much jet fuel and which elevator shafts, then this is speculative and not reliable.

Originally posted by rush969
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.

So? Where is it mentioned that these people were burnt from fires ignted by jet fuel?

Originally posted by rush969
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. At 8:47 a.m., WTC security reported a fire on the 22nd floor.""

How was it determined that the fire was started by jet fuel? Please show me the evidence that was collected to determine this.

Originally posted by rush969
What is described above HAPPENED!!! How many liters of jetfuel were neded exactly, and on what floor, and what shaft, we can only guess.
But I think we should agree there was more than enough. As I said before, it´s common sense.

No, we can't agree that there was 'more than enough', when we don't know how much there was.

You're trying to hand-wave the specifics and fabricate a situation where people believe that there were torrets of jet fuel pouring down elevator shafts. Where is the evidence to show that any fires on the lower floors were ignited by jet fuel?

Originally posted by rush969
If you can´t accept these facts, then I guess you´re proposing a new conspiracy theory of "provoked fires" with other means than jetfuel. Or maybe "stored jetfuel" at strategic points of the towers to be set on fire at the required time.

You haven't presented any facts about the jet fuel for me to accept. You admitted that you do not know how much jet fuel flowed down any particular shaft. You stated that 'we can only guess'. You are trying to coax me into accepting that fires were ignited by jet fuel, based on some witnesses seeing fireballs down the elevator shafts. How do they know these fireballs were ignited by jet fuel?

rush, when all you have is speculation, you're reaching into the realm of faith to expect people to believe any claim that's made about where the jet fuel allegedly poured and how much of it did so.

reply to post by tezzajw


With all due respect, you are refusing to acknowledge very important facts that are perfectly known.
That big airline planes, carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel were crashed against the WTC Towers causing great damage to both the outside structure and the inner structure of each. Creating big explosions and big fires that continued to burn unimpeded.
Part of the fuel burned up in the explosions and part of the fuel spilled, rushed, dispersed, into some of the floors affected by the crash and initial explosions and into utility shafts, elevator shafts and stairs inside the building.
This caused fires to “rain” down into some of the areas and propagate throughout the lower flors.
Now I ask you again:
Putting aside for a moment, the exact calculation of the exact amount of fuel at each area...
Do you have any theory as to what happened, if what I say above is not correct?
Any ideas?



[edit on 1-11-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969
With all due respect, you are refusing to acknowledge very important facts that are perfectly known.

Part of the fuel burned up in the explosions and part of the fuel spilled, rushed, dispersed, into some of the floors affected by the crash and initial explosions and into utility shafts, elevator shafts and stairs inside the building.

With all due respect, you appear to be refusing to acknowledge that NIST's simulations were erroneous.

I have repeatedly asked for figures to show the quantity of the fuel that you allege dispersed into some floors, shafts, stairs, etc...

There was only a finite amount of the alleged fuel present, so it could not have been present all throughout the towers. Which leads a thinking person to ask where exactly was the fuel and how much of it was there?

Originally posted by rush969
This caused fires to “rain” down into some of the areas and propagate throughout the lower flors.

How much fuel 'rained' down? Again, when you can not quantify it, you lack the foundation to prove any kind of propogation with any certainty.

Is it that difficult for any official government story believer to provide figures or models for how the fuel was allegedly distributed throughout the towers? NIST got it wrong, so who can get it right?

[edit on 1-11-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


Good circumventing around the things I posted.
However, you left out the last part. Why?
I ask you again. Let´s put aside just for a moment, any calculations wrong or right by NIST or anybody, for arguments sake.
Can you answer my simple question?
What is your theory?

Originally posted by rush969
Can you answer my simple question?
What is your theory?

I don't have a theory.

I don't need a theory to demand proof from people who make claims about what happened to the alleged jet fuel inside the towers.

So far, no official government supporter has been able to conclusively substantiate anything about the distribution of fuel inside the towers. NIST tried and failed.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by rush969
Can you answer my simple question?
What is your theory?

I don't have a theory.
I don't need a theory to demand proof from people who make claims about what happened to the alleged jet fuel inside the towers.

Alleged fuel? What are you implying?
Claims about what happened to the fuel?

It´s not alleged fuel, the fuel and fires set by it were very real. I think there´s no question about that.
You may have some issue with calculations about amounts of fuel and areas where such precise amounts dispersed, but that´s another matter.

Originally posted by tezzajw

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)

Yes, I did call you a liar because you made up something and attributed it to me for the intentional purposes of deception.

THAT is a lie, making you a liar, making your credibility absolutely zero here because nobody can believe what you say.

MODS, CAN SOMEONE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF A MEMBER LYING ABOUT ANOTHER BY MAKING UP FALSE STATEMENTS?

Originally posted by trebor451
Yes, I did call you a liar because you made up something and attributed it to me for the intentional purposes of deception. THAT is a lie, making you a liar, making your credibility absolutely zero here because nobody can believe what you say.

You're still bleating on about that and breaking the terms and conditions by calling me a liar?

Why?

You agree with me that the NIST report is erroneous with respect to the distribution of jet fuel and wreckage. You grudgingly admitted so, after I pointed it out to you. You expressed your dismay that the report contained the errors.

Any logical person knows that a report containing a model with erroneous outputs, is not reliable and can not be trusted. Therefore, being the logical people that we are, we can't accept that the NIST report is reliable with respect to the distribution of jet fuel and wreckage.

If you wish to argue that the report is reliable, then you're taking an extremely illogical stance, placing your faith in an unreliable report.

Originally posted by trebor451
MODS, CAN SOMEONE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF A MEMBER LYING ABOUT ANOTHER BY MAKING UP FALSE STATEMENTS?

I'll state it again for you trebor, even though it is off-topic... Calling another member a liar is breaching the terms and conditions of this website. I've been warned and fined for it, nearly two years ago. It was in the UFO threads, where I called a Cult Greer follower a liar, for telling lies about me. Moderator Masqua explained to me that calling someone a liar is a direct attack against them and is personal. However, pointing out that the other member is in error, or made a mistake is a more appropriate way to argue the point, rather than attacking the member. Guess what, trebor - I've never called another member a liar since.

In your self alleged 25 year veteran career as a 'civil servant' for the government DoD, did you ever find that there were times when you were far better off taking the advice of someone else?

I'm trying to help you here, to work through your misunderstanding with you. I don't want to see you warned, so I can only advise you to refrain from calling me a liar. There are certain rules to follow when posting on ATS - I'm sure you'll learn to follow them, in time. You're still relatively new here, with a negative point score, so I'm not surprised that you're 'learning the ropes' and rather new to debating in a public forum. Let's just hope that it doesn't take another red flag for you to realise that you can't call other members liars.

I apologise for being off topic.

I really want to know which official government story believers can provide the distribution of jet fuel within the towers, as the NIST model is erroneous and unreliable.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Before I begin my rant, a brief summary of what is happening around this forum... Not long after this event happened and in readiness to deal with it, CT`s were outrageously classified as nutjobs, whacko`s, fruitcakes, whatever, so anyone who questioned the OS were thus tarred with the character assassination brush, no matter what points are brought up here, every single thread gets derailed, and the thread starter made to look like some sort of leprosy ridden vermin to even suggest such a thing, basically, i`ve personally had enough of it.

You have brilliantly summarized the purpose of ATS: to support the "official" story, whatever that might be, primarily by portraying any who don't believe it as lunatics, unpatriotic or worse. Most of those posting here exist to crush dissent and bolster the government and media created official conspiracy theories. They're so dedicated to their calling that it almost seems they view it as their job.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Yes, I did call you a liar because you made up something and attributed it to me for the intentional purposes of deception. THAT is a lie, making you a liar, making your credibility absolutely zero here because nobody can believe what you say.

You're still bleating on about that and breaking the terms and conditions by calling me a liar?

Why?

because you lied. You LIED. perhaps that isn't a big thing to you in your world or your life - online or otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned it is a big deal. You willingly and with intent to deceive attributed something to me that I NEVER SAID. Do you understand yet?

I'll state it again. It may not be a big deal to you. Perhaps you really do do that all the time - in a discussion, argument, debate, whatever, you intentionally misrepresent and make up things and attribute them to other people. You do it, perhaps, to bolster your own argument when you don't have logic or facts to stand on. You do it, perhaps, because maybe you feel you can do anything and say anything here on ATS or on the Internet because there is no fear of retribution or penalty. You can lie all you want - who cares! Integrity and honesty extend everywhere in my world, however, and that is why I suppose you have a very difficult time understanding this concept.

You obviously do not think lying is a big deal. You obviously don't think making up something in a discussion or debate and attributing it to another
is a big deal.

The ATS Mods are on your side, as well, it seems, though. I have heard nothing whatsoever on this - no U2Us, no contact, no how-do-you-do, no nothing. They feel it is ok for their members to habitually lie when called on it, just make anything up in a discussion or debate, even when it is brought to their very faces and their nose is rubbed in it.

Credibility is everything - you have a problem with the NIST report because of 4 minor arithmetic errors, yet you don't understand why I have a problem with you when you lie about something I said?

I guess they do do things different on the other side of the world.

Originally posted by trebor451
Credibility is everything - you have a problem with the NIST report because of 4 minor arithmetic errors, yet you don't understand why I have a problem with you when you lie about something I said?

trebor, you're still going on about your misunderstanding and you're continuing to call me a liar?

The NIST report modelled the distribution of jet fuel and wreckage for each tower, so that's four output results. All four results were wrong. You call them 'minor arithmetic errors' and I would expect that from any person with little experience analysing models and outputs.

Those output figures are wrong. Plain wrong. The model that produced those figures can not be relied upon. It is unreliable.

You agree with me that the errors are present, therefore, logical people understand that the model is unreliable.

Originally posted by trebor451
The ATS Mods are on your side, as well, it seems, though. I have heard nothing whatsoever on this - no U2Us, no contact, no how-do-you-do, no nothing. They feel it is ok for their members to habitually lie when called on it, just make anything up in a discussion or debate, even when it is brought to their very faces and their nose is rubbed in it.

trebor, I understand that in your self alleged 25 year career as a veteran 'civil servant' for the government DoD, that you might be a credible employee.

However, it's clear that on ATS, as a new member, with a negative point score, posting almost exclusively in the 9/11 forum, you're still trying to establish your credibility. You're also still learning how ATS operates and feeling your way around the terms and conditions. I can only try and help you, however, it appears that you have a long way to go.

The ATS Moderators are not 'on my side'. The ATS Moderators are impartial, fair and they don't 'take sides'. Your fundamental misunderstanding here is probably part of you being a little green to the forum.

I can only offer to help you, as I know when I was new to ATS I also typed some regrettable things that I wish I could take back. However, with time and experience, a person learns... but only if they wish to.

I'll no longer type any more off-topic advice to you. There's only so much I can type before you either follow it, or continue to ignore it. I can't make your choices for you. Good luck with your future on ATS.

Originally posted by tezzajw
trebor, you're still going on about your misunderstanding and you're continuing to call me a liar?

Yes. Why? Because you are a liar. You lied by making up something and attributing it to me. Something I NEVER SAID and something I DID NOT BELIEVE. You completely and intentionally tried to imply that I believed one thing by stating I said another.

You are a known liar and nothing you say here or anywhere else can be believe or trusted. Having to resort to lying on the internet is really pretty sad, but it is just a logical extension of the Troother and PfT world.

I can only offer to help you, as I know when I was new to ATS I also typed some regrettable things that I wish I could take back. However, with time and experience, a person learns... but only if they wish to.

So lying is obviously a recurring problem you have. I appears so, since you have no cares whatsoever about lying, repeatedly asking "Why?" when someone calls you on it. You really should seek help. If you can't be truthful here on the Internet, you have a real problem..

I'll no longer type any more off-topic advice to you. There's only so much I can type before you either follow it, or continue to ignore it. I can't make your choices for you. Good luck with your future on ATS.

Good. I will not ignore you, however. I'll make sure every post I can find of yours and everyone you interact with here knows that you are a known liar and that in order to bolster and support your argument you need to make up the things you speak of and you need to lie about what someone else says.

This is just a minor Internet forum, though, so the fact that you have to live with yourself knowing that you can't even be honest or truthful here should be a pretty heavy burden you bear. The funniest thing about this whole sordid affair is that you come here, in cyberspace, on the Internet, on this forum, and you have to lie about something, as if it would make a difference. Hilarious.

Originally posted by rush969
With all due respect, you are refusing to acknowledge very important facts that are perfectly known.
That big airline planes, carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel were crashed against the WTC Towers causing great damage to both the outside structure and the inner structure of each.

According to the majority of reports the planes did not casue that much damage.

You actually believe that a plane weighing 100 tons is going to cause a lot of damge to steel building weighing thousands of tons and with redudent framework?

Creating big explosions and big fires that continued to burn unimpeded.
Part of the fuel burned up in the explosions and part of the fuel spilled, rushed, dispersed, into some of the floors affected by the crash and initial explosions and into utility shafts, elevator shafts and stairs inside the building.

Firemen from Ladder 15 who made it to the 78th floor reported no jet fuel fires on the lower floors.

Originally posted by trebor451
Yes. Why? Because you are a liar. You lied by making up something and attributing it to me. Something I NEVER SAID and something I DID NOT BELIEVE. You completely and intentionally tried to imply that I believed one thing by stating I said another.

trebor, you're still going on about your misunderstanding and you're continuing to call me a liar?

The NIST report modelled the distribution of jet fuel and wreckage for each tower, so that's four output results. All four results were wrong. You call them 'minor arithmetic errors' and I would expect that from any person with little experience analysing models and outputs.

Those output figures are wrong. Plain wrong. The model that produced those figures can not be relied upon. It is unreliable.

You agree with me that the errors are present, therefore, logical people understand that the model is unreliable.

Originally posted by trebor451
You are a known liar and nothing you say here or anywhere else can be believe or trusted. Having to resort to lying on the internet is really pretty sad, but it is just a logical extension of the Troother and PfT world.

trebor, it may pay you to follow the advice of a Moderator on your choice of words:

Originally posted by semperfortis
Attention Please....
The word/term "TRUTHER" is an acceptable idiom.
However the bastardization of the word "Truther" is an insult and from here on will be treated as such.
I am not going to go back and take any action on past offenses, but any future instances and action will be taken.
Thank you
Semper

Calling a member a liar and bastardising the word 'Truther' is directly breaking two of terms and conditions of ATS.


EDIT:

Originally posted by trebor451
I will not ignore you, however. I'll make sure every post I can find of yours and everyone you interact with here knows that you are a known liar and that in order to bolster and support your argument you need to make up the things you speak of and you need to lie about what someone else says.

Good luck with that!!! Seriously!!! Have fun while you're doing so, as I look forward to it!!!

[edit on 3-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
trebor, you're still going on about your misunderstanding and you're continuing to call me a liar?

Do they not teach comprehension in Australian schools? Apparently not. I am still pointing out to the MODS and anyone else who read these posts that you are a liar. You intentionally posted something, attributed it to me and I did not in any way shape or form say that. I did not believe that, I did not mean to say that, I did not imply that, I DID NOT SAY THAT. In your world you obviously don't think that is a big deal. You apparently do that routinely to bolster arguments that you do not understand since you a) don't recognize the seriousness of the matter and b) don't care a whit about lying.

The NIST report modelled the distribution of jet fuel and wreckage for each tower, so that's four output results. All four results were wrong. You call them 'minor arithmetic errors' and I would expect that from any person with little experience analysing models and outputs.

You agree with me that the errors are present, therefore, logical people understand that the model is unreliable.

Logical people should understand that competent debaters, online or in person, do not lie. They do not make up words and attribute them to someone else. They do not stand on that lie and refuse to acknowledge it. They deal in actual truths and are able to cogently craft a position and an argument without resorting to outright lies. You are clearly unable to do that. You are also clearly unable to see this, which tells me you do this routinely.

Originally posted by trebor451
I am still pointing out to the MODS and anyone else who read these posts that you are a liar.

trebor, you're still going on about your misunderstanding and you're continuing to call me a liar?

The NIST report modelled the distribution of jet fuel and wreckage for each tower, so that's four output results. All four results were wrong. You call them 'minor arithmetic errors' and I would expect that from any person with little experience analysing models and outputs.

Those output figures are wrong. Plain wrong. The model that produced those figures can not be relied upon. It is unreliable.

You agree with me that the errors are present, therefore, logical people understand that the model is unreliable.

Originally posted by tezzajwThe NIST report modelled the distribution of jet fuel and wreckage for each tower, so that's four output results. All four results were wrong. You call them 'minor arithmetic errors' and I would expect that from any person with little experience analysing models and outputs.

Do not forget to add about the fact that firefighters from ladder 15 did not see the jet fuel fires on the lower floors as they made it to the 78th floor.

reply to post by REMISNE


Bttalion Chief Orio Palmer reported 2 fires on 78 th floor - now explain
how these fires started? Careless smoking?

Wingtip of United 175 raked through the floor killing & injuring numerous
people there. Among them were people severely burned

If jet fuel didn't cause the fires and burn the people there what did?

78th floor
Kelly Reyher, AON Corporation: The elevator split at the seams, the floor blew up. You could just sort of look right through the corner of the elevator into the elevator shaft and it was just all fire.

So I was able to crawl out. And then when I crawled out you just saw an absolute scene of destruction. Across from me, because when you crawl out you're facing the other elevator bank, they were completely destroyed. There was fire just shooting out those. "Accounts From the South Tower" The New York Times, May 26, 2002

78th floor
Ling Young said she believes she was the last person to escape the tower before it collapsed. She was trying to save her boss, who had suffered a broken leg in the attack.

Young said she was waiting to take an elevator down. When the doors opened, a fireball incinerated several people waiting to get on. She finally made her way to the stairs and out of the building

Fire shooting out of elevator shafts.

People being incinerated by fireballs blowing out of elevator shafts

77th floor
Brian Clark: Somewhere around the 77th floor, the stairway walls were cracked, and you could look through the cracks and see flames. They were just quietly licking up, not a roaring inferno. And there was some smoke there, but again I think the stairs were pressurized, pushing the air out so we had less smoke in the stairway than you might imagine.

Brian Clark and Stanley Praimnath
The two men made a slippery descent down the wet stairs. Occasional cracks in the walls exposed flames within. edition.cnn.com...

Fires in stairways. Now how did that fire get there?

Only reason fires didn't spread is because 78th floor is Sky (elevator lobby) where workers changed elevators. Not much burn as composed
of elevator machinery with tile floors and marble panel walls. No office
furniture or cabinets stuffed with paper and other combustibles

Could go on, but you will find some excuse to ignore it.....

reply to post by thedman

Did you properly read what was typed on the screen, thedman?

Here is it again with some bolding to help you:

Originally posted by REMISNE
Do not forget to add about the fact that firefighters from ladder 15 did not see the jet fuel fires on the lower floors as they made it to the 78th floor.

All that you did was confirm that there was a fire on the 78th floor, which is exactly what REMISNE's quote stated!