• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

Swing, this has been pointed out to you before so I don't suspect you'll take notice of it now....but the people in the sub-levels suffered BURNS - not blast injuries.
 
Swing Dangler said:
1. To destroy the pumping system that would help fight the fire in the upper parts of the tower.

2. To split the firefighting and rescue efforts.

3. A secondary attack on the structure in case they didn't suffer global collapse.
Click to expand...

None of which was effective... You cannot "split" a firefighting effort when one of them is 78 stories above, and only accessible by foot. The firefighting system (I assume you mean the standpipes) was destroyed quite effectively by the aircraft impact, making the comparatively minor blasts down below pretty much pointless. And the effect of the explosions (caused by fuel, though you deny it) was negligible in terms of structural damage.

Pretty far out conclusion you've got there, as usual.

Swing Dangler said:
Can you please accurately source the information for the elevator fell due to impacts? Thanks. We know the elevator fell, but it didn't fall into the elevator pit areas. That is pure speculation on NIST's part which has no evidence to support their assumption.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I sourced it in the post that you quoted. It comes from USA Today, not NIST.

I also have no idea where you get the idea that "the elevator fell, but not into the elevator pit areas." O RLY? Where did they fall, then, and can you please "accurately source" that?

As before, there is nothing at all here inconsistent with jet fuel phenomena. Nor can you concoct, even speculatively, a scenario in which setting off explosives is either possible or makes sense.
 
Oh, one more laugher from Swing

Swing Dangler said:
No, the key word is energy. How much energy needs to be expended to cause the damage on some many basement levels. Here is a hint, it isn't from jet fuel.
Click to expand...

Let's see some numbers.

And as you assemble those, you might want to keep in mind that, in terms of energy content, jet fuel is roughly four to ten times higher than explosives, pound for pound. The amount of fuel draining into the lower structure, estimated by NIST, is roughly 24,000 pounds in each Tower.

In other words, you've just made an argument that there must have been at least 100,000 pounds of explosives in each basement.

Got you.
 
Last edited:
R. Mackey:

To be fair, you should specify what type of explosives you're comparing to...You know, it would be twice as much black powder as TNT, for example...and about 40% more TNT than C-4.

Not that this will make any appreciable difference to your conclusion, but certain individuals will likely claim it does, if we aren't perfectly clear (or even if we are, but still) :)
 
Has anyone ever played with a "spud gun" as a kid?

Where's crazy chainsaw, he probably still has one in his garage.
 
If by "kid" you mean "college student" and if by "played" you mean "synchronized with many others to simultaneously bombard the campus security office from four different firing positions" then yes :D

ETA: ALthough, to be fair, these weren't actually spud guns. We used tennis ball cans and tennis balls.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
None of which was effective... You cannot "split" a firefighting effort when one of them is 78 stories above, and only accessible by foot. The firefighting system (I assume you mean the standpipes) was destroyed quite effectively by the aircraft impact, making the comparatively minor blasts down below pretty much pointless. And the effect of the explosions (caused by fuel, though you deny it) was negligible in terms of structural damage.
Click to expand...
Sure you can.
1. Lots of firefighters.
2. Some go to the impact zone.
3. Some go to the basement levels. Why would you waste our time on this elementary suggestion for one possible motive?
You must have not read Ed McCabe's description of firefighters without flashlights who actually left him alone in the sub-basement to check on secretaries who were injured by what they thought was a bomb going off in their offices.
Hmmm firefighters after impact and and after basement explosions in the basement instead of the impact zone. It sure sounds like firefighting efforts were split to me.

The standpipe's 294A and B as well as the jockeypump were located in the basement hence the desire to eliminate this firefighting process.

You realize that the explosion on the 22nd floor knocked out the Secure Command Center's ability to manually start the sprinkler system? Oh well, sorry I got off topic there.

Rmackey-Sigh. I sourced it in the post that you quoted. It comes from USA Today, not NIST.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but if you would have sourced it, I would not have asked for your source.
I also have no idea where you get the idea that "the elevator fell, but not into the elevator pit areas." O RLY? Where did they fall, then, and can you please "accurately source" that?
Click to expand...
Where did I get the idea? From NIST. I thought you were the resident expert on the NIST report.
Two of the interviewee's associates were injured by flying concrete block on the B2 and/or B4 levels when the 50 Car elevator crashed to the bottom of WTC 1. (NIST NCSTAR1-8, p.80 - PDF) and For an elevator’s cables to be cut and result in dropping the car to the bottom of the shaft, the cables would need to have been in the aircraft impact debris path, floors 93 through 98 in WTC 1 or floors 78 through 83 in WTC 2. Inspection of the elevator riser diagram and architectural floor plans for WTC 1 shows that the following elevators met these criteria: cars 81 through 86 ( Bank B ) and 87 through 92 (Bank C), local cars in Zone III; car 50, the freight elevator, and car 6, the Zone III shuttle. …Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so.(NIST NCSTAR1-7, p.160 - PDF)
Click to expand...
Arturo Griffith's account from the USA Today source of course disproves the car 50 crash nonsense as do the emergency brakes on the other car and their maintenance.
As before, there is nothing at all here inconsistent with jet fuel phenomena. Nor can you concoct, even speculatively, a scenario in which setting off explosives is either possible or makes sense.
Click to expand...
Explosives doesn't make sense? LOL. Lets examine the 1993 bombing and see what it reminded some of.
1. A truck bomb detonates and It felt like an airplane hit the building Bruce Pomper, eyewitness Source: BBC.
It is also interesting to note that "Most of those who died are believed to have been crushed by the station ceiling." not apparently from the blast effects associated with the truck bomb.
Yet when a similar explosion takes place in the basement that reminded others of the 1993 truck bomb and indeed caused damage that reminded them of a truck bomb, instead of accepting the most logical excuse, a truck bomb, the implausibility of a jet fuel explosion is offered with only assumptions to support that theory.

Why is everyone so resistant to a truck bomb in the basement anyway? Yet accept without question and without proof, jet fuel.

You shouldn't have any problems answering these questions in regards to the jet fuel phenomena. Or did you avoid them?

1. Simply trace the route and the amount of the jet fuel, in liquid or fireball form from the initial impact to the basement areas and still account for the survivors located within the elevators.

2. Determine how the fireball, if that is what you truly think caused the damage in the basement areas, had enough energy to cause the local destruction witnessed at impact, and yet not destroy the shafts on the way down to the basement, and then have the energy to destroy parts of the basement areas underneath both towers.

3. Explain how people closest to impact survived the initial blast and jet fuel explosion and then explain how parts of the basement's multiple levels, furthest away from impact, did not. Was there more energy released after impact than during the impact?

4. List the accounts of survivors who witnessed pools, puddles, streams, or large drops of jet fuel streaming down the shafts and/or puddling in the area.

5. Find witnesses who were not later TOLD what had happened. I point this out as Gravy uses Ed's account but he, like many if not all of the people in the basement, were later TOLD what happened.

6. And what about Jenny Carr's audio record of the day? Can you explain that loud sound just prior to the apparent impact of the plane?

Rmackey-Let's see some numbers. And as you assemble those, you might want to keep in mind that, in terms of energy content, jet fuel is roughly four to ten times higher than explosives, pound for pound. The amount of fuel draining into the lower structure, estimated by NIST, is roughly 24,000 pounds in each Tower. In other words, you've just made an argument that there must have been at least 100,000 pounds of explosives in each basement.
Got you.
Click to expand...
Hey we agree on something!! Let's see some numbers in support of the jet fuel excuse. I've been looking for years for that and I can't seem to find any.
First, before I accept this information, can you source the 24,000 pounds of fuel from the NIST report.
Second, what class of explosives are you referring to?
Third, can you provide the necessary numbers to prove jet fuel caused the amount of damage in the basement levels?

Fourth, why are you using the energy equivalent of remaining jet fuel after the impact to prove 100,000 pounds of explosives in each basement had to be used? You would be better off to show the process and data behind the jet fuel to prove it caused the destruction witnessed.

If you sincerely believe in the jet fuel excuse then it should be easy to answer the following questions:
1. Can you source the amount in pounds of jet fuel in each tower after the initial impact and explosion?

2. Second, can your provide the fuel/air ratio necessary for the explosion as well as blast pressure data?

3. Third, can you provide the calculations supporting the official story that jet fuel fireball caused the damage in the basement? You know those energy
numbers NIST didn't provide in their report.

4. Fourth, can you provide any witnesses who saw the amount of jet fuel you claimed did or could do the damage in the multiple levels of the basement?


BenBurch Plus I don't think he has any way to QUANTIFY the damage to the basements in the first place, so there is no possibility of him coming up with a number that means anything.
Click to expand...

Yet debunkers accept as fact the jet fuel excuse without anyway to quantify the damage to the basement with numbers that mean anything despite the historical record of terrorists, the FBI's working theory, the eyewitness descriptions, etc, etc.! Go figure!
Click to expand...
 
Swing;
How do you explain the lack of blast injures to the victims. That seems to be a pesky inconsistency to explosives.
 
DGM said:
Swing;
How do you explain the lack of blast injures to the victims. That seems to be a pesky inconsistency to explosives.
Click to expand...
That raises an interesting question. What's the typical speed of a blast wave (probably not the correct technical term) from the detonation of explosives as compared to the speed of a backdraft?
 
Corsair:

Depends on the explosive used. If you take C-4 or Compound B, your detonation speed is about 24000fps (IIRC). Cratering charges, such as an ANFO mixture, tend to be about 18000 to 20000fps.

These number are from memory, but should be fairly close. I'll see if I can refine them for you.
 
Huntsman said:
Depends on the explosive used. If you take C-4 or Compound B, your detonation speed is about 24000fps (IIRC). Cratering charges, such as an ANFO mixture, tend to be about 18000 to 20000fps.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It was my general impression that the blast wave from explosives was in the tens of thousands of feet per second range.

Now we just need the other half, how fast a backdraft typically moves...
 
IN regards to fuel, try looking at this site
Most vapor cloud explosions are deflagrations, not detonations. Flame speed of a deflagration is subsonic, with flame speed increasing in restricted areas and decreasing in open areas.
Click to expand...

So, subsonic would mean slower than about 1000fps. That's assuming a jet fuel ignition (and I doubt conditions would have been perfect for a true detonation). The above link also gives some equations to determine the distance to a 1 psi overpressure (for comparison, TNT gives as much as 4000psi overpressure).

I'd suspect strongly that a backdraft would also be subsonic, and have similar attributes to a fuel vapor deflagration.
 
There was no damage to the floors in the basements or parking levels. There were no persistant car fires in the garages. That rules out bombs in the garages. The most badly-burned victims were in elevators or near them. Doors on elevators were blown outward. It had to have been from something that originated in the elevators.

Blast damage on floors other than the basements are attributable to the fact that not all elevators ran more than a third of the height of the bulidngs, but many terminated on sky lobby flloors.

That most of the injuries were from moving walls and fire, it is obvious that the blast was a rather soft one, more consistant with a backdraft than with HE. No one describes having their eardrums broken by the blast, also inconsistant with HE.

Nothing in any report is consistant with the detonation of HE in the basements.
 
Huntsman said:
IN regards to fuel, try looking at this site


So, subsonic would mean slower than about 1000fps. That's assuming a jet fuel ignition (and I doubt conditions would have been perfect for a true detonation). The above link also gives some equations to determine the distance to a 1 psi overpressure (for comparison, TNT gives as much as 4000psi overpressure).

I'd suspect strongly that a backdraft would also be subsonic, and have similar attributes to a fuel vapor deflagration.
Click to expand...

Yes but in the movies all explosions are orangy fuel delfagrations...so how do you expect a truther to tell the difference. :confused:
 
leftysergeant:

I agree, but would like to point out that backdraft and jet fuel conflagration would share many of the same characteristics...I don't want to see us lock inot a backdraft theory and ignore the fuel that was a possibility, as well. Fuel conflagration woudl also generate a "softer" pressure wave: they tend to produce a lower total pressure than explosives but over a longer duration...which is why they are good at things like knocking down light walls and similar structures.

The reports are not consistent with HE, either in terms of the material damage or the casualties. It is consistent with a backdraft type scenario or a fuel conflagration. Personally, I find the fuel conflagration more likely by applying Occam (we know fuel was there and it doesn't involve any additional assumptions about pressures or oxygen levels or similar). Of course, new evidence could change my mind :)
 
Had explosives been used in the quantity Swanger would have them used in, Rodriguez would have been a smear of protoplasm and the towers would have fallen pretty much instantly. This is ALMOST what happened in 1993, where it stove in floor after floor of subbasement.
 
Last edited:
"6. And what about Jenny Carr's audio record of the day? Can you explain that loud sound just prior to the apparent impact of the plane?"

Cripes, you mention this all the time, but would it kill you to actually you know, give us a link to it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom