| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Skeptic Leader Denys His NIST Contradiction; Gravy only sees Turtlewax | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 08:04 PM (1,392 Views) | |
| Miragememories | Jan 23 2008, 08:04 PM Post #1 |
|
I thought this was amusing. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3365495#post3365495 MM |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 23 2008, 08:13 PM Post #2 |
|
What contradiction? He's quoting how much was consumed in the initial fireballs, you're talking about how long until all the liquid fuel on the impact floors was consumed. edit: I should also point out that Gravy is of course nobody's leader, and simply one of the more active forum members. Edited by exponent, Jan 23 2008, 08:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Reddawn | Jan 23 2008, 09:23 PM Post #3 |
|
HA HA!!! I think it's amusing too. But probably not for the same reasons you think so... Edited by Reddawn, Jan 23 2008, 09:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| NK-44 | Jan 23 2008, 11:01 PM Post #4 |
|
And that's why he is called by other members of the forum 'leader'. Literally. LMFAO |
![]() |
|
| NK-44 | Jan 23 2008, 11:05 PM Post #5 |
|
Maybe it's because you recognize five minutes to be a "long period". With this statement he indeed contradicts NIST, as MM has pointed out. Has MM put doubt on your leader? What a shame! |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 04:14 AM Post #6 |
|
Could you show me? I certainly don't consider Gravy to be my leader.
Where exactly is NIST being contradicted? The phrase "five minutes" does not exist anywhere in that thread, perhaps you have misread "a few minutes"? Even so this does not contradict NIST, Gravy is quoting the amount of fuel combusted in the initial fireball, MM is quoting the time the remaining portion of liquid fuel took to burn. Where is the contradiction? |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jan 24 2008, 04:31 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
Gravy pulling sources from fairytale land again, why am I not surprised. |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 04:32 AM Post #8 |
|
Gravy's sources are listed here. |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jan 24 2008, 04:43 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
Yes and Gravy is citing a September 2005 report. MM is in April and declares the opposite of what Gravy's fairy tale says. There wasn't lingering jet fuel. I'm sure you can read, right. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf Edited by mynameis, Jan 24 2008, 04:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 04:46 AM Post #10 |
|
The only possible contradiction I could imagine you'd be trying to point out would be this:
Even so the statement presented in contradiction is hardly a contradiction, it clearly says mostly, not 'completely'. Knowing what fires are jet fuel and which fires are office fires only is practically impossible. If this is the statement you're claiming contradicts NIST then perhaps you should ask Gravy to clarify his statement, I can do it for you if you don't have a JREF account. Edited by exponent, Jan 24 2008, 04:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jan 24 2008, 04:49 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
That's okay...Let him lie in it and I didn't draw this conclusion, MM did. I just hate when people spread information without looking and fact checking. I don't expect Gravy to consider that and I don't expect him to be a genius either. Not that I don't spread information. I do, it's just try to get the best available information incorporated into your world view so you are up to date. It would be helpful if there was a collection of up to date sources, but we can't all get what we desire. Edited by mynameis, Jan 24 2008, 04:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jan 24 2008, 07:10 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Owned. as metaphorically illustrated:
Edited by Lin Kuei, Jan 24 2008, 07:10 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jan 24 2008, 09:35 AM Post #13 |
|
then why do so many follow him? |
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jan 24 2008, 09:43 AM Post #14 |
|
Hmm.. So let me get this right. Your saying that Gravy's statement; "a large amount [of jet fuel] did remain as liquid on the main impact floors" does not contradict the NIST statement; "The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact." Gravy indicates that anywhere from a minimum of 25% to a maximum of 40% of the jet fuel was burned off in the fireballs. He then goes on to say the remaining 75% or 60% of the remaining jet fuel (that would be 7,500 or 6,000 gal. of the original 10,000 gal. NIST estimated to be available); "a large amount did remain as liquid on the main impact floors, some apparently igniting periodically over a long period along the south tower's east side, some fuel traveled down the shafts to floors below, and also a few reports of unburned fuel pouring down the outside of the towers. Yet NIST clearly stated here; http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Publi...0505_final.pdf Pg.27 That "The jet fuel", and not 'some jet fuel', which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. How does one interpret this to mean 75% or 60% "did remain as liquid on the main impact floors, some apparently igniting periodically over a long period"? Apparently Gravy doesn't think that even with the help of fireballs, jet fuel is quick to burn. The South Tower crash, which NIST estimated impacted at ~550 mph, produced a 10,000 gal wave of jet fuel which raced out of the pulverized wing tanks, advanced rapidly forward mixing with air while catching fire, and burst out of the windows in the observed massive fireballs. MM Edited by Miragememories, Jan 24 2008, 12:36 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jan 24 2008, 09:54 AM Post #15 |
|
good point MM. what I want to know is... if the official story is so true, then why are they trying so hard to convince us of it? They have a very personal investment in spreading the lies, for sure. |
![]() |
|
| NK-44 | Jan 24 2008, 01:11 PM Post #16 |
|
I'm not aware that 'other members' would necessary include you. Yes, there are members who have called him - literally - leader. I'm sure you know this, at least you haven't denied this when I was bringing this on in a discussion with you in the old loose change forum. So why deny now? And no, I'm not wasting my time searching for the threads where people said so.
I don't give a s#it if the five minute figure was mentioned in that thread. You know, it's in the NIST report, and I thought Roberts had read it all. So when he says
what do you not understand about 'long period'? I guess most people have something else than five minutes in mind when they hear of a 'long period'. |
![]() |
|
| Roxdog | Jan 24 2008, 01:26 PM Post #17 |
|
Most reasonable people, yes. Nice work MM.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 09:16 PM Post #18 |
|
Who exactly follows Gravy? I can't really think of anyone off the top of my head.
Yes this does not contradict the NIST report, it is in fact sourced from the NIST report. The above quotes are slightly out of context insofar as Gravy is referring to the jet fuel remaining after the initial fireball.
How can you possibly try and qualify "the jet fuel" to mean "all of the jet fuel" when the next part of the sentence is "mostly consumed". Mostly does not mean completely. The 75 to 60% remaining is literally subtracting the amount consumed in the fireball from 100%. The fuel which cannot be burned in the fireball inside the towers will undoubtedly remain as liquid (and potentially vapour outside the ignition band). This fuel then burns over the next few minutes as oxygen is available (the fires in the WTC were mostly fuel rich and limited by available oxygen).
I'm afraid not, Gravy's intended message was that 60-75% of the jet fuel survived the fireballs and some continued to play a part in the fires. I asked him about this (for some reason people seem afraid to ask) and he clarified nicely:
Here is the relevant section of the report
Clearly Gravy is not referring to 75-60% of the fuel, he is referring to an unknown portion of fuel which may have ignited sporadically. Nobody is claiming that the majority of the fuel in the towers did not burn quickly, it undoubtedly did.
I am at an utter loss to explain what you mean here. Why would anyone's actions in trying to convince you of any theory have any bearing on how true it is?
I have no problem in believing that some people consider Gravy to be a leader but what I was asking for was a specific example, the claim was that people have literally called him 'leader' and I haven't seen this. What is wrong with asking for a source?
Again why didn't any of you do what I did and ask Gravy about this, he clearly is not referring to the majority of the fuel as evidenced by the two quotes posted above. Edited by exponent, Jan 24 2008, 09:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| agaeraf | Jan 24 2008, 09:24 PM Post #19 |
|
Why do so many of you follow Alex Jones? |
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jan 25 2008, 12:53 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
You can't compare Alex Jones to Gravy. I'll admit although Alex can be a bit of a manic fear-monger (although he is legitimate in being so considering what's at stake), he does a terrific job covering lots of information. I don't know about a 'following' of Alex, but he is a huge inspiration to many across the world. Hey! It's Australia Day today! Let's celebrate!
|
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Jan 25 2008, 03:52 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
I think you are misunderstanding what MM is saying. Reread post 14. |
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jan 25 2008, 05:33 PM Post #22 |
|
I'm going to break down my reply into a series of responses because I don't know how others feel, but I hate wading through overly long posts..something I'm all too guilty of. Who exactly follows Gravy? You for one Exponent. Whenever JREF or Gravy have been the subject of attack in the Loose Change Forums, you usually can be counted upon to make an appearance as a defender. Being a follower doesn't require any formal acknowledgment. Behavior that is in constant agreement with the leader figure, often represented by a passionate defense of the leader's position via mocking followup posts which lack any real individual content, is one of the more obvious indications. Those higher up in the pecking order will usually offer detailed technical retorts in support of their leader after he's made the first 'thrust'. In the JREF Conspiracy Forum, there is an obvious pecking order with Gravy at the top. That's where gravy is normally placed, hence his choice of that name. Gravy's favorite weapons are 'scorn and intimidation', which he uses to bully JREF new comers free of any attachment they may have for arguments supporting an "inside job". With 'new blood', he'll often show patience and consideration, but if the new comer doesn't quickly succumb to the 'will of Gravy', he or she can expect to feel his full wrath and that of his obedient followers. Below him are Gravy's respected advisors, people who actually understand the arguments he presents, extracted from his well organized 9/11 library of 'cut 'n pastes', even if Gravy himself doesn't. At the bottom of the pecking order you'll find the grovelers who cover the leader's trail with insulting abusive posts meant to distract and upset those who dare defy their leader's point of view. To finish I found a few interesting comparisons in an article I recently read; "He was, first and foremost, determined to command personally." "In practice the command relationships were more subtle and complex, especially at the lower levels." "He had an incredible memory for detail and would become annoyed at any discrepancies." "He supplemented that information by consulting with his field commanders." "As time went on he came to believe that [his forum's] victories were his alone." "He shunned serious, comprehensive intellectual effort." "He was largely ignorant of [technical] affairs and foreign cultures." That man was Adolf Hitler. Regarding Gravy's JREF flock, I thought this quote from a successful sheep herder was most telling; "The "rule of the boundary" is the basic rule of large flock boundary herding. It is simple -- the boundary is to be respected. It means that the boundaries designated by the shepherd, whether the flock is in the field grazing or on the road moving from one place to another, the sheep are to be kept inside those boundaries. The shepherd must see to it that the boundaries are clearly defined and that these simple rules are enforced fairly and consistently. When understood and respected the beauty of this basic boundary rule is that by its simplicity it allows maximum freedom for all. The sheep are free to do whatever they want inside the boundaries." MM |
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jan 25 2008, 06:51 PM Post #23 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jan 25 2008, 07:12 PM Post #24 |
|
How can I possibly try and qualify "the jet fuel" to mean "all of the jet fuel"? The same way I could conclude that a reference to "the aircraft" was referring to it as an 'object in total' and not just a piece of the object. If NIST had meant to indicate some of the fuel, they would have used language that indicated some of the fuel. The 75% to 60% remaining refers to the amount NIST stated, and used in Gravy's quote, that was not burned off in the fireball. Most of the remainder, NIST states, was burned off in the next few minutes. In other words within a few minutes after the initial impact, most of the jet fuel had burned off. This is quite contrary to the meaning clearly implied in the NIST statement selected by Gravy; "a large amount [of jet fuel] did remain as liquid on the main impact floors"
Your lack of objectivity and sycophantic feelings for Gravy are all too obvious in your responses to my post. Of course Gravy is going to refine his intended meaning in light of having his original post discredited. As Jon Lovitz would say "that's the ticket!". (For those unfamiliar with the SNL character, this character would make up the lies on the spot, and if he came up with a particularly good lie he would say his catchphrase "that's the ticket!") Gravy's use of the NIST statement "a large amount [of jet fuel] did remain as liquid on the main impact floors" does nothing to suggest he meant the innocuous sounding "some continued to play a part in the fires". Your groveling to please Gravy is downright shameful. MM |
![]() |
|
| Miragememories | Jan 25 2008, 07:46 PM Post #25 |
|
Revisionism! Gravy in his original response made no reference to these additional NIST extracts that support his revised interpretation of his original point of view. And you Exponent in your wish to belief your leader cannot be wrong, are all to eager to lap this up. Gravy's post starts by explaining that 25%-40% of the fuel was consumed by fireballs. Obviously this leaves any further comment regarding remaining jet fuel as meaning the 75%-60% not consumed. What does he say next? He says; "a large amount did remain as liquid on the main impact floors". So yes he is referring to an unknown portion, but he is also saying it's a large amount of a portion that NIST states is 75%-60% of the total original amount! NIST wants to suggest that there was a lot of jet fuel available to reinforce their overall message of significant fire with sustained heat. It's typical evasive language which is found throughout the 10,000 NIST page report allowing for them to use terms like 'rapidly' and 'not rapidly' in reference to the same thing. Gravy simply focuses on NIST extracts which reinforce his propaganda while ignoring, or overlooking, any NIST statements that undermine his message through contradiction, or by creating doubt. There are an overwhelming number of points in Gravy's post that are clearly intended to convey the impression of lots of enduring jet fuel doing all kinds of nasty stuff. -a large amount did remain as liquid on the main impact floors -some apparently igniting periodically over a long period along the south tower's east side -some fuel traveled down the shafts to floors below -also a few reports of unburned fuel pouring down the outside of the towers And to further emphasize his obvious message that there was a large amount of unburnt jet fuel, Gravy cites a link to his own favourite NIST statements (I love how NIST gets caught in contradictions because they publish so much) which contain more suggestion of vast quantities of unspent jet fuel; http://911stories.googlepages.com/descriptionsofjetfueldispersioninthetowe -Of the evacuees interviewed by NIST, 72% reported the smell of fuel fumes in the stairwells of the North Tower, and 63% in the South Tower. -well over half [60%-75%] of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires -some splashed onto office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft to ignite immediately or later -some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts [NOTE Gravy deliberately misquotes NIST and says fuel and leaves out the "burning" part.] Regarding this; Quote Gravy: "I'm referring to the observations about the smoke behavior "most likely" resulting from pockets of unburned fuel igniting on the 79th & 80th floors of WTC 2 from 9:35-9:56.." A quick quote from Dr. Greening (Apollo20 in JREF) "I'm sorry but I don't buy the notion of "pockets of unburned fuel igniting on the 79th & 80th floors of WTC 2 from 9:35-9:56" His complete post is here; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3370046#post3370046 and it's quite entertaining. MM |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









9:03 AM Jul 11