Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Skeptic Leader Denys His NIST Contradiction; Gravy only sees Turtlewax
Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 08:04 PM (1,396 Views)
Miragememories
Member Avatar

look-up
 
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.

Exponent
Yesterday 10:16 PM
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?

People never do anything without a motive. All that hard work, does not add any emphasis to the truth, but it certainly raises the question of why are they so motivated to promote the 10,000 page NIST Report as the truth.

As look-up rightly suggests, why can't they let the Official Story stand on it's own merits?
NK-44
 
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.

Exponent
Yesterday 10:16 PM
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?

When I see a multitude of JREF members behaving towards another member as; admirers, devotees, acoyltes, assistants, attendants, henchmen, minions, lackeys, servants, sidekicks, defenders, worshipers, etc., I don't need to hear them say "leader".

NK-44
 
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'.

Exponent
Yesterday 10:16 PM
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.


Because Gravy has such a high opinion of himself that he feels it is beneath him to respond earnestly to those who dare question his authority.

Gravy and his sheep, as can be witnessed in all the threads over at the JREF Conspiracy Forum, but in particular, this one;

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3354194#post3354194

have had ample opportunity to reply in an open and honest manner.

So what was Gravy's complete response to my post?

Quote Gravy: "Whoever has the best guess as to why in the world Miragememories posted that will receive a year's supply of Turtle Wax."

When I clarified my post to make it as understandable as possible, how did he respond?

Quote Gravy: "Whoever has the best guess as to why in the world Miragememories does not think the jet fuel that burned in the towers after the initial explosions was in liquid form, or why he failed to notice my comment in post #2,
Quote:
Remind your students that most of the fuel for the fires was already in the towers, in the form of office contents.
will win a year's supply of Kiwi Shoe Polish in an assortment of colors."

So then you Exponent thought you should bring this Loose Change thread to Gravy's attention, and he responded with;

Quote Gravy: "Is the thread title, "I refuse to let the fact that I haven't read the NIST report stop me from mocking those who have"?"

Later on after more mocking posts from Gravy and his followers, you coach Gravy with what appears to be a pre-arranged question that allows himself to introduce additional NIST argument without losing any face by responding to me directly. The absurd justification for your question to Gravy is based on your conjured up interpretation as to the source of my Loose Change thread's argument. Right on cue, Gravy blows some more NISTian smoke.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3366774#post3366774

In spite of your claims to the contrary Exponent, Gravy still continued to support my contention that he clearly wanted to convey the impression that lots of enduring jet fuel was doing all kinds of nasty stuff, as witnessed by his pointed statement; Quote Gravy; "NIST and the ASCE estimated that "little oil" to be about 17,000 liters in each tower." in response to Einsteen's statement "..a little oil left will be burned out.."

In his next post Gravy still shows little interest in accountability, but resorts to 'dismissal' which is his 'stock 'n trade' when dealing with those who have him caught in an indefensible position;

Quote Gravy: "Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be MM's strong suit. I always wonder why so many 9/11 deniers, if they don't understand something, don't simply ask. Isn't that easier than starting forum threads that make themselves look foolish?"

His next remark is classic Gravy in it's arrogance.

Quote Gravy: "I made a typo: it should be 9:35-9:56, of course. MM should start a thread about this typo at the new LCF. It'll be the most he's ever pointed out that me or any other debunker has gotten wrong. I do hope he keeps posting here, though. I want a fresh, juicy quote for my TAM talk on Saturday."

At this point e^n which is you (Exponent), jumps in to grovel at the master's feet.

Quote e^n aka Exponent: "Many thanks Gravy, you also said NCSTAR 1-5 when you meant 1-5A but I corrected that in quoting you. I don't understand why people don't just ask their opponents to elaborate, it was hardly a complex manner and you have provided a clear and concise answer. Good luck with your talk on Saturday, will it be available in any format afterwards?"

Gravy's reply.

Quote Gravy: "Thanks. I imagine it will be available on DVD."

Now things take on quite an interesting twist.

Dr. Greening, aka Apollo20 steps in and totally shoots Gravy's last NIST post down in flames.

Now, Dr. Greening is one of the few people JREFers want to handle delicately, because he brings status and credibility to their side and they believe he is outside the flock but in sympathy with the flock. I believe part of the reason Dr. Greening posted this is that he has no love for Gravy or Gravy's constant display of unjustified arrogance.

Quote Apollo20: "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". Anyway the point is that according to the NIST nephelistic theory of fuel dispersion, magically, in a fire ravaged building, the fuel "cloud" collects itself into pools, or should I say "pockets". Pockets that sit and wait to be ignited 50 minutes later.
"What a fool believes, he receives....." The Doobie Brothers"

This is followed by some infighting between RedIbis and T.A.M. no doubt as anxiety rises over current developments.

After much bickering, Dave Rogers tries to salvage the situation with long-winded rambling distraction.

Sample of Quote from Dave Rogers: "Does NIST say what fraction of the fuel aerosolised into what particle size distribution? Without knowing that, any comment about what the majority of the fuel did at some later time is uninformed speculation."

Finally Gravy steps in with his 'notably unsourced' idea of putting the subject to rest.

Quote Gravy: There were pools of fuel below the impact zones. People in elevators had fuel dripping on them. Welcome to reality. Live with it.

With Max Photon and Dr. Greening now slamming his NIST statement, I suspect Gravy will be silent for quite some time, bitter that more of his followers haven't generated enough smoke to protect the weakness of his position. Gravy's ego doesn't handle failure well.

Might we see another production of the Ground Zero's soon?

MM


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blarney fife
Member Avatar

Something I'm curious about...is fuel/air mixture and what is "enough" to ignite it. 10,000 gallons of fuel equals about 1400 cubic feet (water is about 7.8 gallons per cubic foot). The "air", depending on how its measured 208ft x 208ft x 10ft(ceiling) is about 43,000 cubic feet...by 8 ft ceiling about 34,000 cubic feet. Anybody know how to figure out if there was "enough" air available to the amount of fuel available that shows whether 'aerosolized' fuel would burn or pool?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Hi MM,

I hate to admit it, but its guilty pleasure! B-)

I love to see the few true skeptics dishing put the smack down on the groupthinkers and their unsubstantiated theories. Its even funnier when Dr Greening doesn't support their theories too.

Anyway, you are keeping me entertained so please keep up the good work and keep us up to date.

Stundie :)
Edited by Stundie, Jan 25 2008, 10:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

Well I have a lot of replying to do so I will try to address things in a less quote by quote manner.

MM you have made quite a few accusations against me in this thread which I find quite humorous as you manage to try and cover yourself so I cannot make any counter claims. For example, you claim I follow Gravy as some sort of a leader
MM
 
Who exactly follows Gravy?
You for one Exponent.


But then you redefine 'follower' to mean someone you accuse of being a follower:
MM
 
Being a follower doesn't require any formal acknowledgment.

I challenge you to come up with any test to determine if someone is a follower that I meet. What you are trying to imply is that I have some sort of loyalty to Gravy, but your new definition does not imply loyalty at all. You are playing semantic tricks in order to try and invoke two different meanings of the same word. I consider Gravy to be someone who puts a lot of effort into his work and someone with remarkable memory, that's about it.

Your invocation of Hitler later in the first post leads me to immediately call Godwin's law, there's no actual comparison between Gravy and Hitler and your attempt to draw one is pretty hilarious. Gravy does not lead any army, he is not a moderator, administrator or anything but a normal poster on the JREF forum. If you want to continue to write hyperbole about how Gravy is a terrible person then please feel free, I couldn't care less what you think of him or what he thinks of you.

Next we get to another attempt at a bizarre semantic statement
MM
 
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.

I'm afraid they did MM, the Mirriam Webster online dictionary defines mostly as:
m-w.com
 
for the greatest part : mainly

NIST quite clearly stated
NIST
 
The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact.
(bolding mine)

Given the definition above, we can quite clearly say with no ambiguousness that within the first few minutes after impact, NIST claims that the majority of the jet fuel within the towers had burned. Despite for some reason trying to claim you were referring to 'all of the fuel' you seem to then change your mind in the next sentence and state
MM
 
In other words within a few minutes after the initial impact, most of the jet fuel had burned off.

Which is entirely correct.

You claim this statement contradicts with Gravy's statement, but this is utterly ludicrous. Lets remind ourselves of Gravy's original statement in full.
Gravy
 
NIST and FEMA/ASCE estimated that 10-25% of the fuel was consumed in the fireballs outside the towers, that about 15% was consumed as fireballs inside the towers, and that a large amount did remain as liquid on the main impact floors, (with some apparently igniting periodically over a long period along the south tower's east side).

(I snipped the last sentence as it is not relevant)

Gravy is clearly referring to the fuel left after the initial fireballs, not after several minutes but after several seconds. I am at an utter loss to explain how you are so unable to see this? Your post gets even weirder further down so I will include that.
MM
 
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.

At this stage I begin to fail to understand even the most basic of your logic MM, you slip easily into insulting me and declaring that I have some sort of 'sycophantic feelings for Gravy' while quoting a post where I challenged Gravy to elaborate on his claims. How exactly am I sucking up to Gravy by asking for him to provide sources for his claims? Honestly MM if you are going to try and use ad hominems to try and discredit me you could at least make them plausible and not completely contrary to logic.

You claim that (of course(?!)) Gravy would refine his post after the original was discredited while completely ignoring the fact that I asked him to refine his post. Is this some sort of childish game where you convince me to say some sort of naughty word and then go tell the teachers on me? Please MM at least try to make your statements follow some sort of basic logic. Yes Gravy did refine his post because he was requested to do so, how this leads to a discredited original post is beyond me.

MM
 
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, the only person who should feel ashamed here is you, you have twisted words and redefined their meanings, quoted out of context and attacked your opponent to try and win a rather pathetic point even though it has never been valid. I mean come on MM, you have just taken two quotes essentially from Gravy and claim that one doesn't imply he meant the other. I will requote his statement again:

Gravy
 
NIST and FEMA/ASCE estimated that 10-25% of the fuel was consumed in the fireballs outside the towers, that about 15% was consumed as fireballs inside the towers, and that a large amount did remain as liquid on the main impact floors, (with some apparently igniting periodically over a long period along the south tower's east side).
(bolding mine)

I asked Gravy to clarify what he meant by "some apparently igniting periodically" and he provided me with what he was referring to. There is no conspiracy here MM, I am not sucking up to Gravy, I am not trying to convince myself he is right. He clearly clearly stated something which is entirely backed up by the NIST report, you have quoted sources which entirely agree with him and invented some sort of contradiction from nowhere.

Now we get on to your third post, and this is where things get utterly wacky. You abandon claiming that Gravy contradicts himself and actually explain his statement quite well!
MM
 
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!

This is entirely correct, as Gravy stated, some of the jet fuel undoubtedly travelled down elevators and outside the towers, but a large amount remained as liquid. Lets bear in mind this is before the few minutes of fire which consumes it, there is no contradiction here.

You then begin some sort of bizarre obfuscated attack against NIST and Gravy by claiming they try to give an impression that a lot of jet fuel remained in the buildings after the initial fireball. I don't see why exactly you are attacking them for this because they are right!. Look at the evidence you're presenting! Eyewitness accounts of jet fuel, substantiated calculations indicating the likely consumption in fireballs, how exactly is this manipulated or worthy of attack in any way MM?

Your fourth post is little more than a summary of a JREF thread, why you feel the need to try and reinterpret this for other's benefit is something I don't know. I could speculate that it has something to do with trying to convince yourself that you are in the right and that my politeness is akin to sucking up. No MM, I am a pretty nice person to anyone who has not shown cause to be disliked and my politeness to Gravy indicates only that. I use the same level of politeness towards many people here, am I sucking up to them?

I end this entirely pointless and annoying reply with these two quotes which I find of the utmost hilarity
Stundie
 
Its even funnier when Dr Greening doesn't support their theories too.

MM
 
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.

This is of course Dr Frank Greening, author of a paper clearly explaining how controlled demolitions did not take down the World Trade Centres. The fact you use him as an example of how you must be right, then entirely deny the evidence he presents is quite something.

Have fun with this endless tirade of hatred you have against people MM, I have no desire to participate in it any longer. I believe I have clearly illustrated how there is no contradiction in what Gravy says and your endless attempts to spin it as if Gravy is some sort of messiah to me and others is a very poor attempt to save face.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jqpublic

humm, I looked again and I came to the same conclusion - the fires had very little to do with the towers collapsing ... it wasn't even hot enough to distort the upper edges of the impact area of the building if it was hot enough to melt steel then it should be hot enough to deform the skin of the building.. I see no deformation of the upper edges which should have gotten the highest possible tempture exposure from the jet fuel burning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
This is of course Dr Frank Greening, author of a paper clearly explaining how controlled demolitions did not take down the World Trade Centres. The fact you use him as an example of how you must be right, then entirely deny the evidence he presents is quite something.


At least it shows that MM has not the black/white identification and bondage to one of two camps (JREF/LC), which is of course 'quite something' not understandable for someone, who has clearly a bondage to one camp.

Of course MM thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, but that doesn't mean he has to agree on every point with anyone thinking that 9/11 was an inside job, too, and it doesn't mean he has to disagree on every point with anyone believing in the official version.

That that doesn't work in a group which resembles a sect where no dissent is allowed, you're either with us or with the enemy, where every critic aimed at a leader of the sect is followed by a wave of posts from members ridiculing and attacking those bringing up the critic.

That Gravy is some sort of leader for you, e^n, is apparent from your postings here. Why invest so much time defending him, especially when in your eyes the accusations against him are baseless?

In sports I believe they call this cheerleading.




MM, too funny that on JREF they hang on your avatar.

Yes, Mark Roberts is a liar and a government murder apologist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

I hope these posts haven't become too personal sounding, or even worse, boring?

If I'm "flogging a dead horse", I'm more than ready to drop this thread and move onto to something fresh?

For me, the topic is important because the JREF Conspiracy Forum and all the sites it links to, represent a major threat to our hopes of awakening the public to the urgent need for a full and honest accounting of the events of 9/11.

Since Gravy (Mark Roberts), is the de facto leader of that forum, it's important to reveal him for the dangerous propagandist that he is. His tireless efforts on behalf of those who support the Official Story would make Dr. Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister) very proud.

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM
Well I have a lot of replying to do so I will try to address things in a less quote by quote manner.

MM you have made quite a few accusations against me in this thread which I find quite humorous as you manage to try and cover yourself so I cannot make any counter claims. For example, you claim I follow Gravy as some sort of a leader.


In other words you will selectively cull my statements and respond anywhere you think you can contradict me.

If using careful deliberation to reduce the flaws in my reasoning and observations is "covering myself", than I guess I'm guilty.

In the sense that over a long period of time I've observed the level of subjugation you display in your posts relating to Gravy, yes, I do indeed see you treating him as your leader.

If you read my sheep boundary article, you'll appreciate that Gravy allows his followers a great deal of freedom of expression as long as they stay within certain understood boundaries.

Miragememories
 

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.

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM
But then you redefine 'follower' to mean someone you accuse of being a follower:


WRONG! I never stated any change in the understood meaning of the word "follower". If I observe someone behaving as a follower i.e. behaving as a minion, lackey, hanger-on, sidekick etc., I'm entitled to call that person a follower.

Miragememories
 
Being a follower doesn't require any formal acknowledgment.

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM
I challenge you to come up with any test to determine if someone is a follower that I meet. What you are trying to imply is that I have some sort of loyalty to Gravy, but your new definition does not imply loyalty at all. You are playing semantic tricks in order to try and invoke two different meanings of the same word. I consider Gravy to be someone who puts a lot of effort into his work and someone with remarkable memory, that's about it.

Your invocation of Hitler later in the first post leads me to immediately call Godwin's law, there's no actual comparison between Gravy and Hitler and your attempt to draw one is pretty hilarious. Gravy does not lead any army, he is not a moderator, administrator or anything but a normal poster on the JREF forum. If you want to continue to write hyperbole about how Gravy is a terrible person then please feel free, I couldn't care less what you think of him or what he thinks of you.


Please show how I've created a new definition for follower?

You are the one playing semantic games by suggesting I'm altering the meaning of that word. That's a strawman tactic of your invention.

Regarding my comparison of Gravy to Hitler.

Do you always take comparisons between individuals so literally?

My point in making the comparison was to highlight the similarities between a leader (Hitler) who lead his flock (the German people) down a disastrous path (WWII), with another leader (Gravy), who is doing the same thing (covering up the truth about 9/11).

Gravy has constantly exhibited traits that share much in common with Adolf Hitler; a determination to command, an incredible memory for detail, supplements his information by relying on his field commanders e.g. R. Mackey (Gravy's Rommel), acts as if forum victories are his alone, shuns serious, comprehensive intellectual effort i.e. relies heavily on mockery and his cut 'n paste library, and he is largely ignorant of technical affairs and other cultures beyond his own.

I notice you completely bypassed my post #23. Why is that I have to wonder? Is it possibly because it points out one of those NIST contradictions that you like to insist don't exist?

Since NIST places so much 'argument weight' on the fires, any contradiction relating to that subject is going to hurt their whole case. I'll requote what I said in post #23 for the benefit of those, unlike yourself, who are sincerely interested in the truth.

"Yes of course Gravy is referring to the remaining jet fuel leftover after the fireball since after all, that is the subject of the thread.


It illustrates another one of the contradictions in the NIST WTC 1&2 Report.

"a large amount of jet fuel did remain as liquid on the main impact floors" is clearly referring to the situation after the fireball (which developed maybe a second after impact), and is clearly contradicted by the NIST statement "The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact." which means the jet fuel before and after the fireball.

In other words, within a few minutes after impact, the jet fuel was mostly consumed and a large amount of jet fuel did not remain.

Dr. Greening in his recent posts to the JREF thread that this is spawned from, has commented on the absurdity of the supposedly remaining liquid pools, as being in conflict with fuel moving at NIST's predicted velocity of 200 m/s and NIST's claim, made several times, that in WTC2 the jet fuel formed a cloud 0.3 seconds after impact.
"

To be continued...

MM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

Miragememories
 
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.

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM
I'm afraid they did MM, the Mirriam Webster online dictionary defines mostly as:
m-w.com for the greatest part : mainly

NIST quite clearly stated;

Quotes NIST:"The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact."

Given the definition above, we can quite clearly say with no ambiguousness that within the first few minutes after impact, NIST claims that the majority of the jet fuel within the towers had burned. Despite for some reason trying to claim you were referring to 'all of the fuel' you seem to then change your mind in the next sentence and state...


Hold it right there!

First of all, let me finish the meaning of mostly; for the most part, on the whole, in the main, most of the time, almost always, largely, chiefly, predominantly, principally and primarily.

Regarding "all of the fuel", you misunderstand, or are deliberately misinterpreting.

When NIST referred to the "the jet fuel", they meant "all of the jet fuel".

The plane, the building, the car, etc. etc. refers to a single entity and not just part of it.

The context in which I used the expression, "all of the jet fuel" was clearly explained in my airplane example, and refers to it's original complete state i.e. a specific single quantity "X".

Let the single quantity X = "all of the jet fuel" carried by the plane at the time of impact (approx. 10,000 gal. according to NIST)

"All of the jet fuel" rushed forward from the pulverized aircraft. According to NIST, 25%-40% of "all of the jet fuel" was burned off in the fireball. That left 75%-60% of "all of the jet fuel" to be accounted for. NIST stated that most of this remaining 75%-60% of "all of the jet fuel" was burned off in the next few minutes.

No where did I say all of the "all of the jet fuel" Excuse the bad grammar but apparently it was required to show the error in your comprehension.

Maybe if I express it this way you'll understand;

X=the total amount of jet fuel that impacted the tower (all of the jet fuel if you will)

25%-40% of X was lost in the fireballs. Call this .25X or .4X

75%-60% of X remained. Call this .75X or .60X

Most of the remaining .75X or .60X was burned off in the next few minutes.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Miragememories
 
In other words, 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"

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM

Which is entirely correct.
You claim this statement contradicts with Gravy's statement, but this is utterly ludicrous. Lets remind ourselves of Gravy's original statement in full.

Quote's Gravy:
"NIST and FEMA/ASCE estimated that 10-25% of the fuel was consumed in the fireballs outside the towers, that about 15% was consumed as fireballs inside the towers, and that a large amount did remain as liquid on the main impact floors, (with some apparently igniting periodically over a long period along the south tower's east side)."

(I snipped the last sentence as it is not relevant)
Gravy is clearly referring to the fuel left after the initial fireballs, not after several minutes but after several seconds. I am at an utter loss to explain how you are so unable to see this? Your post gets even weirder further down so I will include that.

My post was addressing Gravy's complete post and not just his NIST reference to how much jet fuel was used by the fireballs.

Read in it's entirety, including Gravy's linked NIST references, Gravy and NIST present a different picture than that created by NIST's statement that, "most of the jet fuel was burned off in the next few minutes".

Clearly, they attempt to suggest to the reader that much fuel remained, feeding office furniture fires and helping them to achieve and maintain the necessarily extremely high temperatures required to weaken the steel and thus buttress the NIST/Bazant 'collapse initiation hypothesis'. A hypothesis that I should point out worked in their computer model, and ONLY achieved successful collapse initiation when the parameters for the most severe case were applied.

The towers did not collapse with what NIST's believed was their most accurate model (baseline).

NIST has a lot invested in protecting their argument that there were sustained high temperatures from massive severe fires.

Re-quoting from my earlier post, a few NIST quotes from Gravy's post;

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 [of jet fuel] 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 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 saying 'fuel' while omitting "burning".)




To be continued...

MM
Edited by Miragememories, Jan 26 2008, 07:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

Miragememories
 
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.

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM
At this stage I begin to fail to understand even the most basic of your logic MM, you slip easily into insulting me and declaring that I have some sort of 'sycophantic feelings for Gravy' while quoting a post where I challenged Gravy to elaborate on his claims. How exactly am I sucking up to Gravy by asking for him to provide sources for his claims? Honestly MM if you are going to try and use ad hominems to try and discredit me you could at least make them plausible and not completely contrary to logic.

You claim that (of course(?!)) Gravy would refine his post after the original was discredited while completely ignoring the fact that I asked him to refine his post. Is this some sort of childish game where you convince me to say some sort of naughty word and then go tell the teachers on me? Please MM at least try to make your statements follow some sort of basic logic. Yes Gravy did refine his post because he was requested to do so, how this leads to a discredited original post is beyond me.

Bolding and underlining are mine.



Cough cough. You "challenged Gravy"?

You actually demanded he elaborate on his claims, or did you meekly encourage him to give a revised response?

My so-called ad hominems are just a description of your observed behavior. You simply don't have the cajones to demand anything of Gravy so please don't pretend otherwise.

And yes, Gravy revised his post by padding it further in a waffle attempt to obscure and detract from his original post's message. I say "padded", because Gravy of course, made no retractions, and admitted to no contradictions, which came as no surprise.

Supposedly the pools of jet fuel were revealed to NIST via their interpretation of "smoke behavior in WTC2 from 0935-0956 and qualified by that most familiar NIST phrase "most likely".

10 minutes after his revisionist post he replied to Einsteen's comment "...and the rest [of the jet fuel] like an oil-lamp, in which a little oil left will be burned out.." and came back with his argument for lots of lingering jet fuel by stating a NIST estimate;

Quote Gravy: "NIST and the ASCE estimated that "little oil" to be about 17,000 liters [4,490 U.S. gal.] in each tower."

Cute how Gravy switches to litres to achieve a larger number.

Note that in their other statement, NIST stated 7,500-6,000 gal., represented their estimation of the remaining jet fuel after the fireballs, which was mostly burned off a few minutes after the initial aircraft impacts.

Miragememories
 
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!

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM
This is entirely correct, as Gravy stated, some of the jet fuel undoubtedly travelled down elevators and outside the towers, but a large amount remained as liquid. Lets bear in mind this is before the few minutes of fire which consumes it, there is no contradiction here.

You then begin some sort of bizarre obfuscated attack against NIST and Gravy by claiming they try to give an impression that a lot of jet fuel remained in the buildings after the initial fireball. I don't see why exactly you are attacking them for this because they are right!. Look at the evidence you're presenting! Eyewitness accounts of jet fuel, substantiated calculations indicating the likely consumption in fireballs, how exactly is this manipulated or worthy of attack in any way MM?

As I previously stated, "In other words, within a few minutes after impact, the remaining jet fuel was mostly consumed and a large amount of jet fuel did not remain."

NIST does make reference to burning jet fuel going down the elevator shafts, saying "some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts".

In Gravy's post where he links to his page that uses this NIST quote, he deliberately removes the word "burning" obviously in an attempt to reinforce the idea that there is much remaining unspent jet fuel.

Exponent
Today 1:16 AM

Quotes Stundie:"Its even funnier when Dr Greening doesn't support their theories too."

Quotes Miragememories:"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.
"

This is of course Dr Frank Greening, author of a paper clearly explaining how controlled demolitions did not take down the World Trade Centres. The fact you use him as an example of how you must be right, then entirely deny the evidence he presents is quite something.

Have fun with this endless tirade of hatred you have against people MM, I have no desire to participate in it any longer. I believe I have clearly illustrated how there is no contradiction in what Gravy says and your endless attempts to spin it as if Gravy is some sort of messiah to me and others is a very poor attempt to save face.

I fail to see your point Exponent?

Am I to disagree with everything someone has to say merely because I don't share all their beliefs? I would be at odds with everyone on this planet if that were the case.

The interesting thing here is that you are not making any attempt to address Dr. Greening's argument. Instead you focus on the irrelevant fact that I chose to quote from his attack on Gravy.

I have to say when Dr. Greening is attacking NIST it's tough to hold any animosity towards the guy.

This post is classic;

[quote Apollo20 aka Dr. Frank Greening]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3371875#post3371875

MM
Edited by Miragememories, Jan 26 2008, 08:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

It just gets curiouser and curiouser?

This whole NIST jet fuel thing got me wondering what other contradictions NIST might have made in their vast amount of engineering reportage.

This is what I found after about 30 minutes of perusing their documents.

From the NIST document NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg. 387
"In addition, the impact behavior of the aircraft fuel cloud did not include the
ability to stick to, or wet, interior components
. Rather, the aircraft fuel SPH particles
tended to bounce off of internal structures.
"

From the NIST document NIST NCSTAR 1-5E, WTC Investigation pg.8
"NIST chose 4 L [8.818 U.S. lb] of jet fuel per workstation."

From the NIST document NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation pg.196
"The analysis of the impact response of the aircraft fuel cloud had several limitations. Smooth
Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) was used to model the fuel in the impacting aircraft, and
approximately 60,000 SPH particles were used for the approximately 60,000 lb [7190 U.S. gal.]
of fuel in each aircraft."
]

From the NIST document NIST_Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
Pg.27

"The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact.
The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainly
to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel."


Oh but there's more.

From the NIST document NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation pg. 20
2.2 THE AIRCRAFT
"...On that day, AA Flight 11 was much lighter. Bound from Boston for Los Angeles, some 3,000 miles
away, it carried only about half the full load of jet fuel. When it hit the north tower, it likely contained
about 10,000 gal (66,000 lb), evenly distributed between the right and left wing tanks. fuselage. A full fuel load would have filled all three tanks...."


From the NIST document NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation pg. 24
2.4 THE JET FUEL
"To the wings of the 767-200ER, the perimeter columns acted like knife blades, slashing the aluminum
fuel tanks and atomizing much of the 10,000 gal of jet fuel liquid into a spray of fuel droplets."


From the NIST document NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation pg. 147
"The four cases described in this chapter represented fires that were far more severe than this:
• About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple stories, quickly and simultaneously igniting hundreds of workstations and other combustibles.
"

My problem here if others haven't noticed it, is that NIST seems to be remarkably sloppy with some very important numbers.

NIST has stated that each aircraft impacted the towers with approximately 10,000 U.S. gal. of jet fuel.
NIST also states that 10,000 U.S. gal of jet fuel weighs 66,000 lb. (presumably their numbers are consistently using U.S. weights and measures).
NIST contradicts itself when it also states that 10,000 U.S. gal of jet fuel weighs 60,000 lb (which is the weight of 7,190 U.S. gal).

This contradiction is quite significant given the dramatic difference in effect between 10,000 gal. and 7,190 gal. of jet fuel.

Okay, so I'm wondering which numbers are correct so I check with two online conversion sites.

Site No.1 http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight2volume
10,000 U.S gal = 83,450 lb.

Site No.2 http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm
10 000 gallon [US, liquid] = 1279999 ounce [US, liquid]
1279999 ounce = 79, 999 pound
10,000 U.S gal = 79,999 lb.

Yet NIST says;
10,000 U.S gal = 60,000 lb.
or
10,000 U.S gal = 66,000 lb.

This makes me really wonder about how careful they were with their numbers when the only successful
collapse initiation computer model worked only with NIST's most severe case parameters.

And we should trust their 10,000 page bible..why?

MM

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Site No.1 http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight2volume
10,000 U.S gal = 83,450 lb.

Site No.2 http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm
10 000 gallon [US, liquid] = 1279999 ounce [US, liquid]
1279999 ounce = 79, 999 pound
10,000 U.S gal = 79,999 lb.


You made an error in your calculation. When converting mass of jet-fuel into volume, you have to regard the fuel-density, which is 0,775-0,84 kg/l.

Taking your first converter-link, when you switch to kerosene, you get this: 68,190 lb, that's pretty close to the NIST figure (66,000 lb).

Quote:
 
Yet NIST says;
10,000 U.S gal = 60,000 lb.
or
10,000 U.S gal = 66,000 lb.


Yes, quite a contradiction. NIST estimated 66,000 to be the total fuel, and 60,000 to be the amount of fuel penetrating and remaining inside the tower (which equals the height of about 0,34 inch when evenly distributed over one floor of the WTC).

So maybe that's where the confusion is coming from, but how NIST can state that 60,000 lb equals 7190 U.S. gal. is beyond me.

But they are the experts.... ;)


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

NK-44
Jan 27 2008, 05:29 PM
Quote:
 
Site No.1 http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight2volume
10,000 U.S gal = 83,450 lb.

Site No.2 http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm
10 000 gallon [US, liquid] = 1279999 ounce [US, liquid]
1279999 ounce = 79, 999 pound
10,000 U.S gal = 79,999 lb.


You made an error in your calculation. When converting mass of jet-fuel into volume, you have to regard the fuel-density, which is 0,775-0,84 kg/l.

Taking your first converter-link, when you switch to kerosene, you get this: 68,190 lb, that's pretty close to the NIST figure (66,000 lb).

Quote:
 
Yet NIST says;
10,000 U.S gal = 60,000 lb.
or
10,000 U.S gal = 66,000 lb.


Yes, quite a contradiction. NIST estimated 66,000 to be the total fuel, and 60,000 to be the amount of fuel penetrating and remaining inside the tower (which equals the height of about 0,34 inch when evenly distributed over one floor of the WTC).

So maybe that's where the confusion is coming from, but how NIST can state that 60,000 lb equals 7190 U.S. gal. is beyond me.

But they are the experts.... ;)


Thanks for the correction NK-44, I didn't have the fuel-density factor and I wondered if it explained the discrepancy.

That 7190 gal. amount came from using that online conversion, again without taking into account the fuel density factor.

NIST repeatedly states that they estimated each aircraft was carrying 10,000 gal. of jet fuel when they impacted each tower.

From NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation, pg.124

5.5.2 Modeling of Aircraft Wing Section Impact with Fuel
A significant portion of the weight of a Boeing 767 wing is from the fuel in its integral fuel tanks. At the time of impact, it is estimated that each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gal of fuel onboard.

Clearly there still remains a solid discrepancy between these two statements;

From NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, WTC Investigation, pg. 196

Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) was used to model the fuel in the impacting aircraft, and approximately 60,000 SPH particles were used for the approximately 60,000 lb of fuel in each aircraft.

BUT

From NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, pg.20 [Collapse of Towers]
When it hit the north tower, it likely contained about 10,000 gal (66,000 lb [of fuel]), evenly distributed between the right and left wing tanks. fuselage.

So much for consistency in NIST's numbers.

MM
Edited by Miragememories, Jan 28 2008, 12:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
Miragememories
Jan 26 2008, 05:18 PM
201 tries and still no beauty as to what relates to actual reality. WTG gravy.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3375247&postcount=201
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply