Look, this line of argument is not only pointless, it's just plain bizarre.
You attempted to argue that, perhaps, someone "planted explosives" in the sublevels specifically to distract firefighting efforts from the impact zone.
The firefighters never even got to the impact zone, excepting only the superhuman Chief Orio Palmer (RIP with honor), and he was a ruddy marathon runner with a light gear load. You can't split the firefighting efforts because there weren't any. This "diversion" of yours could only (potentially) delay rescue operations on floors above ground but well below impact. Firefighting upstairs was hindered by logistics, and any such distractions would have been utterly superfluous.
The firefighter’s never got to the impact zone…except a firefighting effort.
Contradiction number 1 noted.
You can’t split the firefighting efforts because there weren’t any, yet you described an attempt in your paragraph.
Contradiction number 2 noted.
We do agree then that rescue efforts were delayed or at least hindered by a split in firefighter’s forces as proven by Ed’s account as well as others.
My suggestion as a possible motivation to split firefighting efforts stands and is not disproved. Rescue efforts which I associated with firefighting efforts were split and hampered as well. Your opinion of such distractions is a moot point.
Besides, why divert them in the first place? According to you, the Towers weren't just loaded with decoy explosives, they were also demolished by explosives, and not fire. So why bother? The firefighting efforts would have been utterly futile. According to you, that building was coming down, fire or no fire. So why contradict yourself?
From the terrorist’s point of view, even they didn’t think the towers would collapse by plane impact alone which would necessitate at least in their view additional explosives. See OBL’s statements. I’m not arguing from an “inside job” point of view at this point. A truck bomb in the basement is of course consistent with terrorist activities despite who you think the terrorists are. If I'm not mistaken, the goal of the 1993 attack was to bring the towers down, correct?
Honestly, is that the best reason you can come up with for "explosives" in the basement? It's preposterous.
Preposterous? Hardly. Contradicting yourself multiple times to disprove a ‘motivation’ theory is preposterous. Using opinion in an attempt to disprove a fact is preposterous.
Someone who supports the NIST report almost wholeheartedly yet attempts to disprove the NIST report wrong is preposterous. The NIST report categorically states that a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage. You are contradicting their analysis by suggesting jet fuel made its way down the shafts, pooled, and later ignited causing the damage.
As I've already remarked, according to you, hindering firefighting efforts is pointless since you believe the fire was inconsequential. Ignoring that for a moment, the basement standpipe and jockeypump, as well as the manual controls elsewhere, wouldn't do anybody any good anyway. The standpipes were broken at the impact zone. There was an effort underway to manually reroute the standpipes as firefighters ascended, but it never completed and may have been futile in any event. So, once again, you have no compelling reason for mythical "explosives" on the lower levels. None.
Ryan, you realize there was the potential for fire in more areas that just the impact zone. Sorry , this point is rejected because you focus on the impact zone only, and not the entire structure susceptibility to fire.
Why yes, I might be among the local NIST Report experts. I misunderstood you -- it appeared that you had some other source that disputed NIST's conclusion, namely that several elevators were cut by the impact, and fell deep into the structure.
You are are suppose to be an expert on the NIST report yet argue against their conclusion of a fireball causing the damage in favor of large amounts of jet fuel making its way to the basement then pooling, without anyone noticing and then igniting.
If you're complaining that the freight elevator (50) didn't actually hit bottom, as NIST sugggests, but instead miraculously halted between the B-1 and B-2 levels, then you're correct; NIST is slightly inaccurate with respect to this detail. However, this has no impact on the viability of the jet fuel path, nor the damage caused by its deflagration. I fail to see what you're complaining about.
One there is nothing miraculous about the event as emergency brakes appear to be a standard mechanical feature on elevators in high rise structures.
NIST wasn’t slightly inaccurate, they were flat wrong on multiple occasions by stating car 50 fell to the basement pits and didn’t stop!
The viability of this jet fuel downpour of course has everything do with it. Why? Because you would have numerous witnesses describing the amount of fuel pouring into the elevator cars, onto the floors, etc. This is why I suspect you couldn’t and won’t produce anyone who witnessed such jet as there was none. I also suspect that is why you don’t care about eyewitnesses or their statements or what happened to them in relation to the basement level explosion/s. Their statements do not support jet fuel pooling in the basement, so you ignore them! Excellent strategy!
Rmackey, you are arguing jet fuel traveled down the shafts and later exploded. NIST says a fireball traveled down the shaft. Why are you disputing NIST’s assumption again?
Laugh while you can. Explosives make absolutely no sense, as I am about to demonstrate to you again.
Ok, explosives in the basement make no sense unless it is 1993?
It is interesting that you ignore the first descriptions of eyewitness testimony and what clearly reminded them of the 1993 truck bombing, the working theory of the FBI and Port Authority, etc.
Poster Norseman answered this skillfully, even though I know you've been given the answer numerous times before, three times by me alone. Read his answer, and please stop asking. It makes you seem... simple.
It is the descriptions of survivors in the elevators that disprove the “jet fuel flow down the shafts excuse for the damage in the numerous basement levels”.
I’m quite aware of the elevator shaft arrangement as listed by Norseman long before Gravy’s paper was peddled around here.
If you examine his comment you will notice something. Jet fuel pours down the elevator shaft in the first part of the segment and then later in the comment a fireball. Arturo Griffith proves that Car 50 can be ruled out with regards to the "pooling jet fuel" theory.
I will tackle the energy "questions," below.
You've got to love the sheer arrogance of this guy. He says, out of the frickin' blue, that "
jet fuel didn't have enough energy to do that much damage." I call him on it, and
demand to see his numbers. Does he provide numbers? Of course not. He provides no support at all, and demands numbers from
me.
Actually I was hoping to get numbers from NIST that you might have stashed away. But it is a moot point. NIST states a fireball did the damage, not jet fuel pooling in the basement levels and then exploding.
As much as I'd appreciate a straight answer from you once in a while,
Swing, I have to admit that it would be so startling, I'd have to suppress the impulse to suspect you of loaning your account to somebody else.
Thanks for the character attack. I appreciate it.
Here's your questions:
In order, here are the answers.1. 24,000 pounds of fuel is the estimate that NIST gave for the amount of fuel running into the lower structure. NIST estimated that there were 66,100 pounds of fuel in AA11 and 62,000 pounds in UA175 at impact (NCSTAR1-2B, pg. 171). Of those totals, NIST estimated that 20% was consumed in the initial fireballs, 40% was distributed on the impact floors, and 40% drained or flowed into the lower structure (NCSTAR1-5F pg. 56).
Great! We have a bunch of guesses that can be tweaked to fit the results. Kind of like the computer models we discussed a while back, but I digress...
Yes, these are rough estimates, and I am on record criticizing these estimates in
my whitepaper. However, working out a better estimate either through investigation or modeling would be a nontrivial undertaking, and for now, it's the best we have. Certainly it's in the right ballpark.
Are you on record criticizing other portions of the NIST report? If so have you contacted NIST to make or suggest corrections as others have?
You don't have to answer those of course.
2. I'm referring to all chemical explosives. The energy density of Jet A is approximately 43 MJ / kg (remember that number for later). The typical yardstick, TNT, is a mere 4.2 MJ / kg, ten times less. Exotic, impractical, high-powered explosives such as
octanitrocubane only get up to about 7.5 to 8 MJ / kg, still a factor of five below Jet A. It really doesn't matter what explosive compound you fantasize about, they just aren't going to give you more energy than the jet fuel, unless you propose a fantastic amount of it. I can only assume you don't know much about explosives.
I think your missing an important point that I address below. How is that energy released into a destructive form.You understand that the way the energy is released is different between jet fuel and tnt. You understand that in a jet fuel explosion, all of the energy does not support the shockwave/ blast pressure due to reactions at the molecular level.
3. As a matter of fact, I can prove that jet fuel could cause the damage seen. This step is a long one.
To begin, let us model the problem as follows: Suppose the entire basement of a Tower suffered an overpressure event, sufficient to cause the observed damage. We can describe the damage qualitatively:
Lets see if paper and pencil support reality...
- There was extensive damage to interior and furniture over a wide area.
Can you detail what part of the interior you are referring to and the type of damage?
[*]Damage to the structure, however, was minor to negligible.
Can you explain the structure in relation to the interior part you mention above and the damage you are referring to- There are no reports of anyone being killed by the blast. The principal danger was fire.
You left out a key component. People being injured by the blast, not just killed. It may have not killed anyone inside because you are unaware of their location in relation to the pools of jet fuel you state could have caused the explosion. This key point contradicts the extensive damage to walls, parking garages, offices, etc. Yet another contradiction. The principal cause of damage was a shock wave, not fire. Remember people were burned in the 1993 truck bombing as well, and most it was believed died from a collapsing wall, much like the reports after 9/11 about a wall being blown up and injuring one survivors face.
Based on these factors, we estimate that the magnitude of the pressure pulse was moderate, in the range of 1 PSI, since overpressures of 5 PSI typically damage or destroy all but hardened structures, and would have surely killed many who were inside. Nevertheless, we want to overestimate the energy requirement to make absolutely certain that my contention -- that the jet fuel is more than sufficient -- is true. We will use the higher, less credible estimate of 5 PSI. In proper units, this is 34.5 kPa.
Again the pressure pulse/shock wave is created differently at the molecular level as I pointed out above.
Next, suppose the deflagration pressurized the entire volume of the basement to 5 PSI. This is another deliberate overestimate. In actual fact, the overpressure would be a wave rather than a static phenomenon, and thus the true energy requirements are much, much lower. Let us suppose that the basement area was the size of the WTC footprint (64 m square) times a depth of 25 m, sufficient for at least six sublevels. This is a total volume of roughly 100,000 m3.
Here is yet another error. It was not one large area of course, but divided into multiple floors separated by large floors of concrete. What you have proposed is a large empty cube for a model. You don’t place walls, shafts, machinery, shops, parking garages, offices, subway tunnels, etc. into your ‘cube’ that would dissipate the energy through the destruction process.
Your applying your calculations to an empty cube instead of a model based upon reality. Are you sure you don’t work for NIST?
Next, we work out the energy required to raise that entire volume by the pressure differential required. There are several ways to calculate this, depending on your model of the process. The simplest is to consider the Bernoulli energy density, in which case
E = ΔP V, but this only applies in non-dissipative processes along streamlines, and is generally an underestimate. At the other extreme, we can consider an increase in pressure due to heating in a constant-volume process, which is maximally entropic and will overestimate the energy required. We will use the latter extreme.
To solve the energy density in this fashion, we simply apply the Ideal Gas Law, in this case expressed as follows:
Doesn’t the ideal gas law state that real fluids at low density and high temperature, approximate the behavior of a classical ideal gas.
However, at lower temperatures or a higher density, a real fluid deviates strongly from the behavior of an ideal gas, particularly as it condenses from a gas into a liquid or solid.
Ryan, what temperatures are you applying to your model to get the most accurate ideal gas law calculation?
ΔP V = n R ΔT (1)
where
n is the number of moles of gas and
R is the gas constant.
After we solve for the increase in temperature, we can then extract the energy required from the simple expression:
E = ρ V cs ΔT (2)
where
ρ is the density of air and hence
ρ V is the total mass of air, and
cs is the specific heat capacity of air.
Substituting for
ΔT in (2) using a rearrangement of (1), we find that:
E = ρ V2 cs ΔP / n R (3)
Or, using the shorthand
N = ρ V / n where
N is the molar mass of air, i.e. the number of grams per mol, we arrive at the answer:
E = N V cs ΔP / R (4)
Values for these constants are as follows:
- N = 28.97 g / mol
- cs = 1.012 J / g K
- R = 8.31 Pa m3 / mol K
And so we find that:
E = 3.53 V ΔP (5)
In other words, this formulation is roughly 3.5 times the energy of the Bernoulli approach. All that work for a lousy factor of 3.5. So it goes.
We are now ready to compute the answer. In our problem,
V = 100,000 m
3, and
ΔP = 34.5 kPa. Therefore, the energy required in our model -- understanding, again, that it is a deliberate overestimate -- is equal to:
E = 3.53 (100,000 m3) (34.5 kPa) = 12.5 GJ
12.5 GJ is a lot of energy. But how much is that in terms of jet fuel? Now recall that jet fuel has an energy density of 43 MJ / kg. This means, in order to get this much energy, we need (12.5 GJ) / (43 MJ / kg) =
290 kilograms of jet fuel.
That's all. 290 kg, or about 640 pounds, 375 liters, just under 100 US gallons.
I remind you, this is a
wild overestimate. In practice, the fuel will probably not all burn at once, and will not be terribly efficient, but the constant-volume method above captures all of these effects. The actual number might be two to ten times smaller if we did it carefully, but that doesn't matter.
Not just in practice, mind you but in reality. Yet rather than confront reality, you use the empty cube model with all the fuel in one spot and ignited at once. I might point out that you did not detail the method of ignition in your model.
So given that we accept your 290Kg of fuel, his so called overestimate suddenly becomes an underestimate. Because in your own words, in such a scenario, the 290Kg of jet fuel would not burn all at once and will not be terribly efficient. Therefore, your minimum amount of fuel required to produce the overestimated pressure, would be higher than your result.
Yet another contradiction.
What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable.
Now we are jumping from the empty cube model to support reality. The empty cube model left out everything that would redistribute and separate the total amount of fuel.
I'll hurry through the rest of the questions.
4. To do the same amount of damage with explosives, using the ratios already discussed above, you would need about 2900 kg of TNT, or 1450 kg of the obscure and never-used octanitrocubane. Any explosive you pick will land somewhere in the middle or perhaps heavier than these figures. That's a heck of a big boom.
This whole line of reasoning is of course flawed, because you describe no damage in your cube nor in the basement levels.
5. This is a repeat of Question 1. See above for the source of the jet fuel amounts.
6. I can only assume that your question about mixing ratios is a desperate clutch at straws. Jet fuel's
mixture ratio is 0.044 by mass. Our 290 kg of jet fuel would thus require 6591 kg of air, or a volume of 5492 m
3, or about 5% of the volume treated in the above exercise. There is
plenty of air to get it done. Nice try.
Considering jet fuel detonation relies upon the necessary fuel/air ratio component it has nothing to do with straws as the jet fuel expert statement I quoted below explains. The fuel pooled then ignited, obviously only the surface of this pool will ignite and begin to burn. If we imagine a pool of 290Kg of fuel, then when ignited, it is only the top layer of this fuel that will burn to begin with, thus at any one time this 290Kg of fuel has only a percentage ignited.
According to this expert:Jet fuel is similar to kerosene and, unlike gasoline, requires very high temperatures to burn. Unless it is in vapor or mist form — which can occur in a plane crash — jet fuel does not explode. Additives raise the flashpoint of jet fuel, further reducing the likelihood that it will burn. Jet fuel doesn't explode easily, experts say, and fire would not have spread along airport pipelines. Source: Alleged plot's damage would have been limited. LA Times-By Megan Garvey, Times Staff Writer
June 3, 2007
To read about this demonstrated in reality please examine this account by Ed Mitchell:
I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, and Blacksmith Forger. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning. The grounding failed, and the million gallons blew up. Well, for a diesel fire that is. It didn’t “blow up”. It simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel.Source:
Physics"
7. Repeat of Question 3.
8. I have no need to provide witnesses. The level of destruction that would be wrought by my model explosion above is greater than even the most speculative cherry-picked assessment of witness reports. This is the value of doing a bracketing or "worst case" analysis. I can afford to sacrifice precision, since the effect is so obviously within the capability of a jet fuel explosion.
No need to provide witnesses? LOL. I would state that too if I were trying to prove large pools of jet fuel ignited after impact and caused the damage in the multiple levels of the basement structure. Again, not a single person describes 1 gallon of jet fuel let alone 100 gallons or more. Keep this in mind when you state you have no need to provide witnesses.
9. It should now be perfectly obvious why we accept the jet fuel argument, and why we reject the "truck bomb" argument. But for your benefit, I'll state it anyway:
- Remember how big the "truck bomb" was in 1993? 1300 pounds of various low to moderate explosives, call it 1000 pounds TNT equivalent. My jet fuel situation above is about five times more powerful. You'd have to spec an awfully big truck.
Your problem however is that you apply the same shock wave process to jet fuel as you do to TNT. This is an error of course. The process occurring at the molecular level is different resulting in a non-ideal explosive in the jet fuel form. The jet fuel will not have all of the energy supporting the shock wave and the pressure pulse will not reflect all of the energy released during detonation so you can not apply the same pressure pulse to the two explosions. TNT because the oxidizer is combined with the fuel at the molecular level results in an ideal explosive.
Now your jet fuel scenario which is 5 times more powerful doesn't do anywhere near the damage as the 1993 truck bomb. Why the reason I listed above.
[*]Despite being smaller than my jet fuel case, the 1993 truck bomb woke up the whole damn town. No way to conceal that. Forget it. It would be totally obvious that high explosives had been used. The jet fuel, on the other hand, delivers its blast as a deflagration, and is totally consistent with witness statements, both inside and outside the structure.
Now your comparing the amount of explosives of 1993 with jet fuel and stating the same amount of explosives had to have been used in 2001. Tsk, tsk.
[*]Even a smaller truck bomb, on par with the 1993 event, would have killed people through blast and shrapnel. Didn't happen. So you must have a smaller truck bomb. This contradicts the points above, thus the hypothesis is DOA.
The 1993 event killed 6 people. As this article points out, most if not all were killed by a collapsing wall. But people were also burned and injured by a concussive force as well. Yet no one would argue that a bomb didn't go off. To add to that, some thought that a plane had hit the building. So to point out the injuries in people to disprove the bomb in the basement is erroneous and rejected.
[*]Unlike truck bombs, it's clear to everyone that there was jet fuel in massive quantities running all over the place. There's no evidence for explosives. The "excuse" is yours.
Yet another contradiction. Earlier in your comment you do not care to provide witnesses for the "jet fuel pool in the basement theory" yet rely on witnesses to describe jet fuel running all over the place. At impact level, yes, but in the basement, no. You need witnesses to report the fact jet fuel was in the impact areas, but reject witnesses who don't describe pools of jet fuel in the basement.
[*]How anyone would trigger a bomb coincident with a jetliner impact is almost too incredible to contemplate. Was someone watching with his finger on the button? Why? What's the point?
Straw of course but I will entertain. Why couldn't someone be watching with their finger on the button so to speak? What is the point?
1. To hamper rescue/firefighting efforts.
2. To help bring the towers down. They knew it wouldn't get it done in 1993 so perhaps they tried again with planes this time, or to help rig the core in the basement levels to assist in the collapse.
3. Kill and injure as many people as possible.
---
I strongly suspect this entire exercise won't change your totally unsupported and fantastical beliefs one bit, but maybe I'm wrong. Justify my optimism. Try to understand. Take all the time you need.
Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts.
What I've found is:
1. Your own theory contradicts the NIST report. (Closet truther?
)
2. You do have issues with the NIST reports. (Not RMackey!!
)
3. You recognize that NIST made errors in their report. (A debunker recognizes this!!?!?!
)
4. You believe that flawed models reflect reality. (Now that's more like it!)
5. You believe that jet fuel, when ignited, produces the same pressure pulse that TNT creates when detonated thereby comparing a "non-ideal explosive i.e. jet fuel, with an "ideal explosive" tnt.
6. You believe that your jet fuel model, which apparently is 5 times more powerful than the 1993 truck bomb, did very little damage in comparison to the 1993 attack.
7. Witnesses are only to be used when they support your side of an argument.
)
