Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[leftysergeant]

You are definitely in the running for the poster of the most absurd and needlessly rambling post in this threat, SD. It is needlessly redundant and full of absurd remarks which I can only conclude were based on your misunderstanding of what we who know something about fire fighting operations and explosives were saying.

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.

Errr...Which of us even mentioned pools of fuel. You seem to be confusing us with the woo-woos who saw pools of molten steel. Obviously, pools of fuel would not have deflagrated with any force. It would have sat there and burned quietly with a humongous cloud of sooty black smoke pouring out of every possible opening into the surrounding streets. Nor do most of here think that the fuel coming down the shafts would remain a fluid, but that it would become very well aerosolized and oxygenated and thus ready to deflagrate with nearly the force that it would in the combustion chamber of a jet engine. We aren't saying that the fuel pooled, you are saying that we said it. We are not that stupid.

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?

What would be the point of setting it off before the first responders had responded?

1. To hamper rescue/firefighting efforts.

Then they screwed up, because there were no fires in the basement to fight. It became an EMT operation, for the most part. That was really a small part of the force of first responders available.

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.

Considering that an obviously much more powerful bomb in 1993 failed to do any significant structural damage to the core columns, I fail to see how anyone clever enough to plan the airstrikes would have thought that this little trouser cough was going to make any kind of difference in so far as bringing down the structure was concerned. The existance of the spires in both buildings proves that they had, in simple fact, no effect.

3. Kill and injure as many people as possible.

Wouldn't the demolition charges in the upper levels do that more efficiently had they allowed more fire fighters to gain those levels?

 

[R.Mackey]

Owww, my optimism!!

So predictably, you managed to not understand a single thing I wrote.

Some things truly never change.

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.

Uh huh. In your sequence of events, there would have been two firefighters that made it to the 78^th floor, with no firefighting gear, but alas! a devilish ruse to set off explosives in the basement split the firefighting effort, and only one was able to get there, not enough to stop the fire, the one that made no difference at all since your same conspirators triggered demolition charges to level the building anyway... How Fiendishly Clever you're not.

Oh Look, here's another reason why that makes no sense: Say I was the evil genius behind it all, and for whatever stupid reason I needed to delay the firefighting efforts. And I've got a truckload worth of explosives I can put in play. Why would I set them off randomly in the basement, when instead I could use the same resources to destroy the stairwells, and eliminate any possibility of fighting the fires? Hmm?

Admit it, either there is no NWO plot at work here, or I'm smarter than they are, i.e. they suck. In any event, your speculative reason for why anyone would put explosives in the basement is just frelling crazy. It's right up there on the list of classic inflations with A-train's highjackers jumping out the wheel wells, or Christophera's C4-coated rebar, or Killtown's insistence that Flight 93 would have crumpled like an accordion on impact. It's far too dumb to even be funny.

I reiterate, you cannot construct a possible motive for simultaneous bombs in the basement. Strike one.

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?

You're talking about the terrorists that you don't think exist, right?

What a stupid operation. If there's doubt that an attack would fail, you escalate, not complicate. Use a bigger truck bomb or a larger aircraft. Hit a weaker target. Wait for a better opportunity. You don't try to set up a truck bomb that goes off at the same time as an aircraft impact. Not even the Swiss are that good. You wind up with double the complexity and four times the risk.

Preposterous? Hardly. Contradicting yourself multiple times to disprove a ‘motivation’ theory is preposterous. Using opinion in an attempt to disprove a fact is preposterous.

I agree. And that's precisely what you're doing here.

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.

What? No, they do not. NIST never states that "a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage." They state that jet fuel traveling down the shafts is what caused the damage. There is no contradiction at all between myself and NIST on this point. NIST actually reports multiple fireballs, depending on local constraints, not one big one roaring down the shafts. Try reading it.

NIST only treats the basement damage very, very superficially, and for good reason. It had almost no impact on the structure. Its only relevance, from their perspective, was its effect on occupant response and emergency operations.

There's far too much straw in your post. Please fix it.

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.

There were also fires ignited in more areas than the impact zone. Nonetheless, firefighting efforts would have concentrated on the impact zone, had there been any way at all to attack it. Elsewhere the fires were relatively easy to control and posed a far lower threat to the structure. And, again, in your special corner of the universe, the threat wasn't from fire at all, but from demolition charges. For some reason you keep forgetting your own theory, possibly because it's totally ridiculous.

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.

There's no argument between myself and NIST. This is the second time I've had to ask you to put down the strawman.

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!

It is pretty miraculous that the emergency brakes would catch the elevator a mere two or three floors before impact, after falling from the vicinity of the 49^th floor. All it would have taken was another tenth of a second, and Mr. Griffith and the other occupant would have been killed.

As I already stated, NIST is inaccurate in this regard. It's not the only error. It is, however, of little consequence.

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?

Uh huh. I suppose you think there were people in the elevator shafts, dutifully recording the volume of fluid passing by, while ignoring the other things going on around them... If I say anything inconsistent with witness statements, that's worth exploring, but you gain no traction at all here. I haven't.

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.

There never was a "working theory" of either the FBI or the Port Authority that truck bombs had gone off in the basements. Any such speculation by individuals was based on woefully incomplete evidence. Mr. Pecoraro is an example -- he initially suspected a truck bomb, then heard (incorrectly) that it was a helicopter crash at low level, and believed that to be true until receiving better information.

With the total picture in hand, explosives in the basement make no sense. That's all there is to it.

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.

No survivor description is even faintly at odds with the theory. Indeed, several report smelling the jet fuel in question. Others were burned. You're lying.

If you were aware of the elevator shaft arrangement, then why on earth did you have to be told eleven times, by three different people, that three shafts ran from the impact zone to the basement?

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 have no idea what you're talking about. Jet fuel pouring would naturally precede a jet fuel fireball. (And probably afterward too, we're talking about an awful lot of fuel.) There is no contradiction.

Thanks for the character attack. I appreciate it.

While my comment may have been snide, it's a simple fact that you refuse to give a straight answer. I remind you, you said that the jet fuel didn't have enough energy to cause that much damage. I asked you to back that up. You've provided no support of any kind. I proved rigorously that a mere 1% of the jet fuel could easily cause all the damage seen and more, and you're still capering about.

If you want to be treated as an equal in this discussion, you'd better behave like one. That means backing up what you say. Apparently, you can't.

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...

Actually, the NIST fuel dispersion estimate wasn't tweaked, and wasn't used in any result, excepting the fuel loading on the fire floors. In that problem, NIST varied the fuel load by a factor of two and found that it made no significant difference. No tweaking. Your ignorance of the NIST Report appears to be nearly total.

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.

Unlike you, I have no problem giving straight answers.

I am indeed on record criticizing the NIST Report. It forms a whole chapter in my whitepaper. Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you're unable to follow links. If you click these three words, it will take you to a copy.

The final location of Elevator 50 is not significant enough to matter. However, there is one major area that I believe NIST is wrong, and two others that I believe are still open. Of these three, one (disposition of jet fuel on impact) is being treated by Purdue, and unless there are problems with it I will simply consider the Purdue results as more up-to-date. The other two should be revisited in the WTC 7 final report, which is still pending. Patience.

However, as I've said here several times, if those other two items are not treated in the WTC 7 report, I will indeed contact NIST with my concerns. I actually know enough about the subject and science in general to criticize their work usefully, and I will be glad to help.

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.

I didn't miss it at all. Did you read where I contrasted the two energy approaches? One of them is the most optimistic case, the other is the most pessimistic case. I've bracketed every possible form of energy release in my energy calculations. There is no error.

Lets see if paper and pencil support reality...

Can you detail what part of the interior you are referring to and the type of damage?
Can you explain the structure in relation to the interior part you mention above and the damage you are referring to

Reading comprehension, Swing. My model treats the entire interior and overestimates -- by a huge amount -- the pressure wave. I don't need detail because there is such a vast source of energy present, it exceeds any rational estimate of damage.

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.

I left out nothing. Reading comprehension again, Swing. People are injured at 1 PSI or often less. But nobody was killed by the blast. That puts a pretty hard upper limit on the strength of the pressure wave. As a result, we have a low pressure event over a large area, and that automatically rules out high explosives. Fuel deflagration, on the other hand, fits perfectly. I'm afraid if you still don't understand, you never will, because it's about as obvious as it can be.

By the way, I never said it was caused by "pools" of jet fuel. Your strawman apparently is a triplet.

Again the pressure pulse/shock wave is created differently at the molecular level as I pointed out above.

Pressure pulse / shock waves are not created at the molecular level. They are not turbulence. You're just making up stuff that sounds scientific now. My derivation above should be a warning sign to you that I'm not going to be fooled by such amateurish tripe.

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?

My model, again, is a deliberate overestimate. The subdivision into multiple floors and areas means that I don't have to pressurize the whole thing, but my model does anyway. The "dissipation" you discuss is treated rigorously by my constant-volume approach, which allows you to build up that pressure as slowly and compartmentalized as you want. I already handled those concerns. You're simply out of your depth.

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?

There's nothing "accurate" about my computation by design. Deliberate overestimate. That applies to the Ideal Gas Law as well. I know my numbers are high, but it doesn't matter. The real effects of the gas, not contained in my model, make my hypothesis even more likely.

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.

Don't have to. Ignite it any way you like. There's still a huge energy surplus.

You really don't understand modeling at all, do you?

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.

What you wrote here makes no sense at all. 290 kg of jet fuel is proven to contain more energy than is needed to cause the destruction in the basement. Period. It never becomes an underestimate. I guess that strawman is a quadruplet?

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.

Redistribute it any way you like. My model is still an overestimate.

This whole line of reasoning is of course flawed, because you describe no damage in your cube nor in the basement levels.

Au contraire, I describe a 5 PSI overpressure. That would pretty much trash the entire cube and/or basement levels. I don't have to count the broken lightbulbs or cracks in the plaster -- any damage you claim to have, my model is worse. Period.

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.

Ah, there's that "pooling" strawman again.

This is really quite funny:

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. [Irrelevant anecdote about a burning tank of diesel fuel deleted]

OK, you've reached a new depth of silliness. This reminds me of Killtown when I had to explain what "volatility" and "aerosol" meant.

If you have a tank of diesel fuel, it will burn, not explode. Sure. Everyone knows this. This is because the fuel isn't aereated, and there's relatively little vapor. You have to expose it to air, preferably as a fine mist, and then it will jolly well explode.

Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, that jet fuel that gets smashed through a building at 450 MPH or more, then pours down about 900 feet of elevator shaft, then -- just in case there's anything bigger than a droplet left -- splatters around the hard surfaces of an elevator shaft, is not aereated??

That's your theory now?

Better cling to that thread with all your might. It won't support your weight, but it's the only refuge you have left from reason.

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.

Ack! The strawman returns! I am not claiming that "large pool" of jet fuel ignited. At no time does it recoalesce and lose its oxygenation.

And over 70% of witnesses interviewed from the whole ruddy tower smelled jet fuel. That's thousands of witnesses. If they can smell it, that means it's been aerosolized. And that means it can explode.

What I have no need to provide is any detail regarding the extent or location of damage. Once again, my approach guarantees there is plenty of energy. Plenty of air, too. It's totally feasible.

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.

"Ideal Explosive," huh. You're in my field, now, and even further out of yours. Let me give you some of the correct verbiage. You might learn something.

The words you're looking for are "Deflagration" and "Detonation." This refers to the speed of the combustion wave in the reacting material. If that speed is lower than the local speed of sound, then it's a deflagration. This is significant because if the reaction speed exceeds the speed of sound, the blast front is discontinuous in pressure, i.e. a shock wave is created. A deflagration, on the other hand, has a measurable rise time between the beginning and maximum overpressure, usually in a few milliseconds. The rise time changes the effective impulse of the blast, and so it is sometimes possible to destroy things through a detonation that would survive a higher overpressure in a deflagration.

Jet fuel actually can detonate, but usually deflagrates. This is determined by the Rankine-Hugoniot relationship, which is far outside your understanding so I will leave it at that. However, my calculation doesn't care whether it's a detonation or deflagration. The fact that no occupant was killed by blast pretty much ices it as a deflagration. There are no high explosives that deflagrate, by definition, therefore it was not caused by explosives. Period.

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.

Reading comprehension again. My explosion does more damage, is more energetic, but affects a wider area. Its peak overpressure is lower, as is its pressure-impulse on objects close by, as compared to the truck bomb. But it affects a much wider area. You're thinking about this in only one dimension, and that won't work.

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that, in order to do the damage seen in 2001 -- since it affected a wider area -- if it was explosives, it would have to be more explosives than were used in 1993. It's very simple to understand.

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.

Again, you simply don't get it. Let me try again:

1. The "bomb" in 2001 affected a larger area than the bomb in 1993.
2. If the "bomb" in 2001 was, in fact, a bomb, it would have to be larger than the one in 1993.
3. This larger bomb would have killed many people outright due to blast.
4. This did not happen. Therefore we need another explanation.
5. Jet fuel deflagration would affect a larger area, but would also be less lethal in terms of blast.
6. Therefore, a "bomb" similar to the 1993 event is ruled out. Deflagration is still a viable candidate.

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.

Once again, no "pools" are needed. Even Willie Rodriguez reported smelling jet fuel. The witnesses are all on my side, Swing.

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.

As discussed above, this would be utterly capricious, inefficient, and self-inconsistent. Hardly the work of master conspirators. Your imagination runs wild, but runs poorly.

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.

1. Not at all. You merely fail to understand the NIST Report.
2. Indeed I do, and this is not secret. Try reading what I write sometime.
3. Many people recognize errors in NIST. This doesn't in any way affect the unavoidable conclusion that what we saw was due to aircraft impact, and aircraft impact alone.
4. Nope. You simply can't understand even a simple derivation.
5. Nope. And please learn the following words: detonate, deflagrate, low explosive, high explosive, brisance, shock wave, pressure wave, and sound speed.
6. Very little structural damage, yes. Perfectly ordinary. Kind of like the difference between FAEs and conventional bombs. Actually, almost exactly like that.
7. Nope. Read more closely. I just don't need the detail to run that calculation. By the way, if you ever find a witness that saw a truck bomb and hasn't changed his story eleven times, then I might begin to take you seriously.


But hey, this is progress. At least Swing isn't still claiming jet fuel didn't have enough energy. He's now moved on to claim that it couldn't explode at all. Equally stupid, but it's progress.

Point of interest: The fuel explosion in my model is only 1% of the jet fuel available. If it was somehow possible to trigger all of the jet fuel inside a WTC Tower as an optimal fuel-air explosion, the total energy release would be an amazing 1.25TJ, or equivalent to 290,000 pounds of TNT. Naturally, it's nearly impossible to set off such a massive and complex FAE, but if it was done, the entire Tower would be blasted to pieces, instantly. Lots of energy in that jet fuel.

School's out, Swing. Hope you learned something.

 

[CHF]

Ouch!

Now that was a smack-down!

 

[R.Mackey]

Perhaps, but he won't notice...



Needless to say, I'm not doing this for Swing, since it's painfully clear that he doesn't want to understand. But other people might enjoy my derivation.

Is it really so hard to understand that plane crashes create jet fuel-powered fireballs? And that when these go off indoors, bad things happen? Is it really that foreign of a concept?

 

[CHF]

The part that really amazes me is how Swing takes "victims were burned" and "people smelled jet fuel from the impact zone all the way down to the sub levels"...adds them up and gets: "bomb in the basement!"

It's friggin' bizarre...and so is his rationale for why bombs would be set off down there.

For ages it was "they wanted to weaken the sub-levels;" now it was apparently "to split the FDNY."

He's got his warped conclusion and is desperately trying to make things fit around it, but he's only making his case worse.

 

[BenBurch]

Say I was the evil genius behind it all...

Well, you'd Certainly have to demand Sharks. With lasers!

 

[leftysergeant]

I've been kind of role-playing this to see if there were any better way to have done it, were I a terrorist out to inflict maximum casualties.

Since a truckload of ANFO in the basement fizzled in 93, that is obviously out this time around. Several smaller charges, scattered around the various sub-levels would have a lot more effect, especially if so set to cause massive gasoline fires. This would involve setting small charges under several vehicles on each level of the parking garages.

But how to get it all past the one bomb dog? Difficult at best.

So that leaves placing stashes of class B fuel in proximaty to the elevator shafts, right where it would be noticed by curious janitorial staff.
No, there is just no way to manage it that I can see.

Cutting charges on the core columns below ground level would have toppled the buildings once collapse was initiated.

There just isn't any kind of device that I can imagine that would have functioned as it would need to to produce the blast effects seen.

 

[Hellbound]

R.MAckey:

Excellent post. I almost responded to SD myself, I'm glad now that I waited. You got the point across much better than I could, clearly and with good backing. My explanation would have been less scientificy. But hey, I'm no rocket scientist*, or anything .


*-I'm sure that joke got old long ago, but I can't resist. I seem to have developed a thing for corn...

 

[Wolrab]

Awesome! Thanks R. Mackey! That explanation was incredibly easy, for even a layman such as myself, to follow. The forums where I usually post are way behind the times. They are haarping on about DEWs now. In a few months, when they get to this baloney, I'll have a quick and ready trap to set for them. I'm glad there are people like you that take the time and effort to demonstrate how completely idiotic truthers are.

 

[R.Mackey]

The forums where I usually post are way behind the times. They are haarping on about DEWs now.

And you, sir, have a dry wit. No way you can convince me that was a Freudian slip.

In case you haven't already seen it, last year I demonstrated how simple mathematics can also disprove the entire palette of DEW theories, in this post. A little simple analysis goes a long way.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Needless to say, I'm not doing this for Swing, since it's painfully clear that he doesn't want to understand. But other people might enjoy my derivation.

One of those people would be me. Thanks for the writeup; it helps establish perspective regarding the amounts of energy potentially available. That happens to be a bit difficult for the layman to conceptualize properly.

 

[LastChild]

Ok which shaft/s did the fireball/s travel down? And was there also explosions on the 44th or in the stairs?

 

[DGM]

Ok which shaft/s did the fireball/s travel down? And was there also explosions on the 44th or in the stairs?

[qimg]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/images/inno_elevators.gif[/qimg]

6,7 and 50.

 

[Mooseman]

Let us start over all again

 

[Swing Dangler]

So predictably, you managed to not understand a single thing I wrote.

Uh huh. In your sequence of events, there would have been two firefighters that made it to the 78^th floor, with no firefighting gear, but alas! a devilish ruse to set off explosives in the basement split the firefighting effort, and only one was able to get there, not enough to stop the fire, the one that made no difference at all since your same conspirators triggered demolition charges to level the building anyway... How Fiendishly Clever you're not.

Rmackey, were there calls for firefighters besides the one you mention to help fight the fire in the South Tower? Yes or no?
Let me refresh your memory to prove you wrong yet again:
Battalion Seven: "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones"
Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Chief Palmer reports on the 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones, we've got isolated pockets of fire, we're gonna need at least two hand lines up there"
Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Seven alpha from the Battalion Seven"
Battalion Seven: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15"
Ladder 15 Officer: "Fifteen"
Battalion Seven: "I'm going to need three of your firefighters out of stairweay to knock down two fires. We've got a house line stretched, if we can get some water on it and knock it down
Ladder 15: "Alright, 10-4, we're coming up ..."
Rmackey, I think we can agree that there were firefighting efforts involving more than just one man. This of course proves your earlier statement wrong that there were no firefighting efforts. But since you care not to admit your error, I will point it out to you.

Oh Look, here's another reason why that makes no sense: Say I was the evil genius behind it all, and for whatever stupid reason I needed to delay the firefighting efforts. And I've got a truckload worth of explosives I can put in play. Why would I set them off randomly in the basement, when instead I could use the same resources to destroy the stairwells, and eliminate any possibility of fighting the fires? Hmm? Admit it, either there is no NWO plot at work here, or I'm smarter than they are, i.e. they suck. In any event, your speculative reason for why anyone would put explosives in the basement is just frelling crazy. It's right up there on the list of classic inflations with A-train's highjackers jumping out the wheel wells, or Christophera's C4-coated rebar, or Killtown's insistence that Flight 93 would have crumpled like an accordion on impact. It's far too dumb to even be funny.

HAAACHOO! So much straw in the air! Your opinion of the motivation does not disprove the motivation. I suppose you think the 1993 truck bombing was just as crazy, but holy cow they did it anyway. You remember the motivation for that don’t you?
Those are some crazy terrorists!

Hmmm a truck load of explosives to blow up stairwells. How pray tell will that happen? It is one thing to drive a truck into a parking garage quite another to drive a truck load of explosives into a stairwell. I suppose if you had a NWO shrinking machine you just might be able to get it done. You’ve totally ignored the other possible motivations: destroying the water pumps, etc. in the basement, an attempt to weaken the core to collapse the towers which failed in 1993 of course. You might also do it to kill people…hmm terrorists killing people…now that’s a novel idea.
I can reject the evil genius fallacy. If I’m an evil genius and can make it all happen, I use a suit case nuke and blow up a large portion of the city. Ahh but that didn’t happen so we can scratch the evil genius excuse.

You're talking about the terrorists that you don't think exist, right?

Please repost where I stated terrorists don't exist? Thanks. If not, remove the field of straw you plant!

What a stupid operation. If there's doubt that an attack would fail, you escalate, not complicate. Use a bigger truck bomb or a larger aircraft. Hit a weaker target. Wait for a better opportunity. You don't try to set up a truck bomb that goes off at the same time as an aircraft impact. Not even the Swiss are that good. You wind up with double the complexity and four times the risk.

Hmm a 100% guaranteed effective terrorist operation is what you are suggesting to support this statement. Any operation is going to have a measure of doubt about its success. The hijacks themselves are pretty risky themselves.
I can reject the evil genius fallacy. If I’m an evil genius and can make it all happen, I use a suit case nuke and blow up a large portion of the city. Ahh but that didn’t happen so we can scratch the evil genius excuse.

I reiterate, you cannot construct a possible motive for simultaneous bombs in the basement. Strike one.

Simultaneous? So now you’ve taken one theory, a truck bomb, and turned it into multiple bombs? LOL! Why pray tell do you feel the need to do that in this thread?
I can construct numerous motives, you don’t accept them. One of those motives is based upon history, the collapse of the towers,which apparently you reject that motive. The others are really secondary to the discussion and have no impact on whether or not there was a bomb or as you say bombs in the basement.

What? No, they do not. NIST never states that "a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage." They state that jet fuel traveling down the shafts is what caused the damage. There is no contradiction at all between myself and NIST on this point. NIST actually reports multiple fireballs, depending on local constraints, not one big one roaring down the shafts. Try reading it.

ROFLMAO! Ok lets examine this one paragraph and prove you wrong. You state NIST never states that “a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage, but later on in your paragraph, you state that NIST reports multiple fireballs. I sure wish you would source the NIST report when you speak for them as I do below and for goodness sakes man, stop contradicting yourself.

1. "The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft and the elevators cars were burned. (Basement level of WTC 1)." (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)
Here we see that NIST does state a fireball traveled down the shaft. No jet fuel, no multiple fireballs, but just one fireball.
I suggest, RMackey, you get your facts straight before labeling yourself as an expert on the NIST report.

Here is your quote from a previous comment supporting the fireball.
“R.Mackey -Anti-falling devices notwithstanding, there were lifts that did fall. I wouldn't have suggested this otherwise. The huge fireball in the sublevels cited by William Rodriguez did, in fact, issue from a freight elevator shaft after the elevator fell due to the impacts. Source: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2927980#post2927980”

Again, you contradict yourself, this time with your own words! Doesn’t that bug you a bit when you contradict yourself so often? Maybe if your nice to me, I will peer-review your paper to see if you contradict yourself there as much as you have on this thread.

Your theory based upon your own model is of course that at least 100 gallons of jet fuel made its way un-detected, un-ignited to the basement, pooled there, and then was ignited all at once to cause the damage witnessed in the basement. This model you pointed out doesn't really reflect reality in any way shape or form.

At least that is sort of what your model is based upon with the exception being an empty cube with no fuel falling down shafts.. After all, you didn’t split up the fuel as what would have happened in reality. Then you ignite the fuel all at once. In order to do that, the fuel would have to be in a single pool.

NIST only treats the basement damage very, very superficially, and for good reason. It had almost no impact on the structure. Its only relevance, from their perspective, was its effect on occupant response and emergency operations

.
Can you source where NIST explained why they treated the basement damage superficially? Based upon the above contradictory paragraph, I can not accept anything you say with regards to NIST on faith alone, hence the request for the source of this statement.

There's far too much straw in your post. Please fix it.

That straw as you cry are multiple examples of how jet fuel reacts in reality when ignited all at once.

There were also fires ignited in more areas than the impact zone. Nonetheless, firefighting efforts would have concentrated on the impact zone, had there been any way at all to attack it. Elsewhere the fires were relatively easy to control and posed a far lower threat to the structure. And, again, in your special corner of the universe, the threat wasn't from fire at all, but from demolition charges. For some reason you keep forgetting your own theory, possibly because it's totally ridiculous.

Wait just a second. Earlier in the thread you stated there were no firefighting efforts at all and focused on the impact area alone, and now your encompassing other areas. Great. Your coming along at least.

Now your stating elsewhere fires were easy to control.
1. Please point out where I stated the threat was not from fire but from explosive demolitions alone? Nevermind, you can't!

2. Why are you confusing the threads discussion about the events in the basement of the tower with a theory about the cause of global collapse?

There's no argument between myself and NIST. This is the second time I've had to ask you to put down the strawman.

Sure there is. You theory/model holds that all of the jet fuel pooled in the basement and then ignited to cause the damage. Or at least your empty cube model has all of the fuel igniting at once. A pool of jet fuel so to speak.
NIST above asserts that a fireball traveled down the shaft.
If you could prove yourself correct, please source where NIST believes that un-ignited jet fuel traveled down the 3 shafts or 1 shaft for that matter, pooled in the basement, and then ignited to cause the damage on the numerous basement levels. If you can’t provide this assessment by NIST, you of course contradict them by suggesting that there is no argument between you and NIST.

It is pretty miraculous that the emergency brakes would catch the elevator a mere two or three floors before impact, after falling from the vicinity of the 49^th floor. All it would have taken was another tenth of a second, and Mr. Griffith and the other occupant would have been killed.

I’m surprised, a scientist referencing miracles. I never thought I would see that on JREF.

As I already stated, NIST is inaccurate in this regard. It's not the only error. It is, however, of little consequence.

Now apply this assessment to the entire report, and then you have the primary reason for University of Manchester's Professor of Structural Engineering,Colin Bailey calling for the computer models to be released...to check for errors.

Uh huh. I suppose you think there were people in the elevator shafts, dutifully recording the volume of fluid passing by, while ignoring the other things going on around them... If I say anything inconsistent with witness statements, that's worth exploring, but you gain no traction at all here. I haven't.

Do I think that? No. Are there witnesses that were near elevator shafts that saw a fireball? Yes. Notice that they didn’t see jet fuel pouring into the shafts. Accounts of water in elevator cars, fireballs, damage, etc, yes, but no jet fuel which equates to no eyewitness testimony to support your theory that jet fuel in the basement was ignited to cause all of the damage witnessed.

There never was a "working theory" of either the FBI or the Port Authority that truck bombs had gone off in the basements. Any such speculation by individuals was based on woefully incomplete evidence. Mr. Pecoraro is an example -- he initially suspected a truck bomb, then heard (incorrectly) that it was a helicopter crash at low level, and believed that to be true until receiving better information.

Yet another error by my friend, Mr. Mackey. There never was a working theory…hmm I will post a segment from the interview and a link to the video. Mr. Pecoraro has nothing to with the FBI’s working theory, which is straw of course. On the other hand, Mr. Pecoraro’s suspicions support the working theory as well as many other people who suffered in the basement explosion.
According to a terror expert interviewed by USA Today on 9/11, the FBI's initial working premise was that trucks packed with explosives aided the collapse of the twin towers, a fact that dovetails with reports of middle easterners being arrested after running away from truck bombs that later exploded that day.
Lauren Ashburn: "Joining me is Jack Kelley, now he is a foreign correspondent - war correspondent - and just came back from Israel. He has some information about these attacks. Jack, what can you tell us happened, first in New York."
Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."
Lauren Ashburn: "Now that's the first time were hearing that, so 2 planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?"
Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."
Just incase there is a transcribe error, you can view the news report here:
USA Today FBI Working Theory:
Or see more here:
Here is a second report confirming the theory by Rick Sanches of MSNBC:
Sanchez states,
”Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion.I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had an explosive device in it.”
Just in case there are transcript errors you can watch it here.
Apparently there was something fishy as bomb squads were present at the debris site as detailed by this emergency worker’s account which you can read here.

Proved wrong again, R. Mackey, as there was a working theory.

With the total picture in hand, explosives in the basement make no sense. That's all there is to it.

There is a total picture of course, and you seem to miss most of the pieces or ignore them.
Based upon an even greater picture, then it makes complete sense. And that fact that you are uniformed about it (which is what I hope is the case) or you lied about makes it even more probable.

No survivor description is even faintly at odds with the theory. Indeed, several report smelling the jet fuel in question. Others were burned. You're lying.

I smell cookies! Ahh there must be some cookies in the room. Shucks, nope, they were being baked on the other side of the building. The point being, smell of jet fuel in one area does not equate to the presence of jet fuel in the same area.
Please point to the number of survivors who witnessed jet fuel in the shafts?
If you can’t do that I understand, there are none that I'm aware of.

If you were aware of the elevator shaft arrangement, then why on earth did you have to be told eleven times, by three different people, that three shafts ran from the impact zone to the basement?

I was hoping someone would point out which of the 3 shafts would be found full of jet fuel.
We have 3 shafts that according to your theory should have pools of jet fuel that ignited to create the damage in the area. Not a single person’s account describes pools/ or pool of jet fuel that were later ignited to cause the damage in the basement. Yet we have several people describing that damage in the basement that they thought was a repeat of the 1993 truck bomb.

Is there anything in the historical record prior to 9/11 where a jet fuel explosion from a plane reminded survivors of a truck bomb terrorist attack?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Jet fuel pouring would naturally precede a jet fuel fireball. (And probably afterward too, we're talking about an awful lot of fuel.) There is no contradiction.

Don't forget, according to your model, you need that jet fuel to make its way to the basement undeterred to be ignited all at once. It also has to bypass everything that might ignite it on the way down and it has to do it undetected.
Your model or theory has the jet fuel pooling. Your calculations, if I’m not mistaken, were based upon the total amount of jet fuel igniting at once, hence the pool of jet fuel. There is no need to obfuscate the issue.
The contradiction of course is that NIST states a fireball did it, and you state fuel, ignited later, did it.

Actually, the NIST fuel dispersion estimate wasn't tweaked, and wasn't used in any result, excepting the fuel loading on the fire floors. In that problem, NIST varied the fuel load by a factor of two and found that it made no significant difference. No tweaking. Your ignorance of the NIST Report appears to be nearly total.

So NIST varied the fuel loads, etc, but that doesn't equate to tweaking?

Unlike you, I have no problem giving straight answers.

Straight, contradicting answers...I understand though, your only defending the official story which is full of contradictions...but alas the straw has been harvested already.

I am indeed on record criticizing the NIST Report. It forms a whole chapter in my whitepaper. Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you're unable to follow links. If you click these three words, it will take you to a copy.

As I said to you earlier, I will peer review that for you if you are nice to me and if you think the NWO lizard kings will let me.

The final location of Elevator 50 is not significant enough to matter. However, there is one major area that I believe NIST is wrong, and two others that I believe are still open. Of these three, one (disposition of jet fuel on impact) is being treated by Purdue, and unless there are problems with it I will simply consider the Purdue results as more up-to-date. The other two should be revisited in the WTC 7 final report, which is still pending. Patience.

Not significant? This whole location of 50 is the excuse given for a wide range of damage to the North Tower. An excuse that is wrong. So we have a wide range of damage at impact that NIST chalks up coming from an elevator hitting the basement. But the elevator didn't do that, so what caused it? We are left to wonder.

Why do you think NIST sub-contracted for the fuel distribution scenario?
Also, if Purdue is doing the work, that doesn't bring a whole lot of confidence to the problem as their other animations are quite comical when compared to reality.

However, as I've said here several times, if those other two items are not treated in the WTC 7 report, I will indeed contact NIST with my concerns. I actually know enough about the subject and science in general to criticize their work usefully, and I will be glad to help.

Time will tell, now won't it.

I didn't miss it at all. Did you read where I contrasted the two energy approaches? One of them is the most optimistic case, the other is the most pessimistic case. I've bracketed every possible form of energy release in my energy calculations. There is no error.

How is the energy released in jet fuel?
How is the energy released in TNT?
Why is the blast lethality different? I know. Do you?
Ryan the only thing you proved, assuming the numbers are correct, is that the potential energy resides in 100 gallons of jet fuel sitting in a large empty cube could produce a large amount of energy when detonated in an empty cube. Your model assumes the exact fuel vapor/air ratio is correct as well.
In no way did you detail how that energy would be released as I pointed out that difference between TNT and a fuel based explosive. I pointed out a real world example involving not 100 gallons of jet fuel but 1,000,000 gallons and the ignition source of lighting and it did not match your model. Imagine that, a real world scenario not matching reality. Are you positive you don’t work for NIST?

I left out nothing. Reading comprehension again, Swing. People are injured at 1 PSI or often less. But nobody was killed by the blast. That puts a pretty hard upper limit on the strength of the pressure wave. As a result, we have a low pressure event over a large area, and that automatically rules out high explosives. Fuel deflagration, on the other hand, fits perfectly. I'm afraid if you still don't understand, you never will, because it's about as obvious as it can be.

By the way, I never said it was caused by "pools" of jet fuel. Your strawman apparently is a triplet.

What term describes the volume of the un-ignited jet fuel in the basement would you prefer? Puddle?

Pressure pulse / shock waves are not created at the molecular level. They are not turbulence. You're just making up stuff that sounds scientific now. My derivation above should be a warning sign to you that I'm not going to be fooled by such amateurish tripe.

My model, again, is a deliberate overestimate. The subdivision into multiple floors and areas means that I don't have to pressurize the whole thing, but my model does anyway. The "dissipation" you discuss is treated rigorously by my constant-volume approach, which allows you to build up that pressure as slowly and compartmentalized as you want. I already handled those concerns. You're simply out of your depth.

There's nothing "accurate" about my computation by design. Deliberate overestimate. That applies to the Ideal Gas Law as well. I know my numbers are high, but it doesn't matter. The real effects of the gas, not contained in my model, make my hypothesis even more likely.

I was asking for the temperature that you apply to your model for it to conform to the ideal gas law. Do you have that by chance?

Don't have to. Ignite it any way you like. There's still a huge energy surplus.

And how that energy is released is the major point. If I have a pool of jet fuel/kerosene and ignite it, it doesn’t explode. Hell if that were the case kerosene heaters would be the preferred method of home owner insurance fraud!

You really don't understand modeling at all, do you?

I understand modeling very well, thank you. I have an issue translating the model to reality to support your argument. You’ve shown that to be the case in your early comment reflecting reality with regards to your model.

What you wrote here makes no sense at all. 290 kg of jet fuel is proven to contain more energy than is needed to cause the destruction in the basement. Period. It never becomes an underestimate. I guess that strawman is a quadruplet?

How is that energy released when compared to TNT?

Redistribute it any way you like. My model is still an overestimate.

That is the point. See next comment.

Ah, there's that "pooling" strawman again.

Jet fuel all ignited at once or jet fuel dispersed over a large area and dozens of floors. Which does NIST subscribe to? And which one is your model based upon.
Your model doesn't disperse the fuel. It places it in the middle, suspended in air, of an empty cube. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, you've reached a new depth of silliness. This reminds me of Killtown when I had to explain what "volatility" and "aerosol" meant.
If you have a tank of diesel fuel, it will burn, not explode. Sure. Everyone knows this. This is because the fuel isn't aereated, and there's relatively little vapor. You have to expose it to air, preferably as a fine mist, and then it will jolly well explode.

See below for that aerrated issue.

Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, that jet fuel that gets smashed through a building at 450 MPH or more, then pours down about 900 feet of elevator shaft, then -- just in case there's anything bigger than a droplet left -- splatters around the hard surfaces of an elevator shaft, is not aereated??

No, what I'm saying is there is a precise fuel vapor/air ratio that needs to be met before an explosion takes place. You ignore this.
For jet fuel A, the lower explosive limit is 0.7%, the upper explosive limit is 5%, therefore in order for a fuel air explosion to have occurred in the WTC elevator shafts or basement for that matter, there had to have been a mixture of no less then 0.7% fuel, and no more than 5% fuel to air ratio. Any ratio outside of these limits and a fuel air mixture would not ignite and no explosion. Hence the other article I linked to below from a jet fuel expert.
But what we do have are the presence of a fireball that doesn't create the structural damage associated with a high blast event via explosive devices.

That's your theory now?

Nope. That is you ignoring the data required to have a jet fuel pool explosion.

Ack! The strawman returns! I am not claiming that "large pool" of jet fuel ignited. At no time does it recoalesce and lose its oxygenation.

Your model depends upon the fuel igniting all at once, all in volume. No straw. What would you prefer to call your jet fuel in volume in one finite area? A puddle?

And over 70% of witnesses interviewed from the whole ruddy tower smelled jet fuel. That's thousands of witnesses. If they can smell it, that means it's been aerosolized. And that means it can explode.

Wrong of course. That goes back to the vapor/air ratio thing I mentioned.
I smell cookies, so therefore cookies must be in sight? Wrong.

What I have no need to provide is any detail regarding the extent or location of damage. Once again, my approach guarantees there is plenty of energy. Plenty of air, too. It's totally feasible

.
Too much air, no explosion. Too little air, no explosion.

"Ideal Explosive," huh. You're in my field, now, and even further out of yours. Let me give you some of the correct verbiage. You might learn something. The words you're looking for are "Deflagration" and "Detonation." This refers to the speed of the combustion wave in the reacting material. If that speed is lower than the local speed of sound, then it's a deflagration. This is significant because if the reaction speed exceeds the speed of sound, the blast front is discontinuous in pressure, i.e. a shock wave is created. A deflagration, on the other hand, has a measurable rise time between the beginning and maximum overpressure, usually in a few milliseconds. The rise time changes the effective impulse of the blast, and so it is sometimes possible to destroy things through a detonation that would survive a higher overpressure in a deflagration.

So was I wrong or right by calling TNT an "ideal explosive" and jet fuel "non-ideal" explosive because of how the energy is released?

Jet fuel actually can detonate, but usually deflagrates. This is determined by the Rankine-Hugoniot relationship, which is far outside your understanding so I will leave it at that. However, my calculation doesn't care whether it's a detonation or deflagration. The fact that no occupant was killed by blast pretty much ices it as a deflagration. There are no high explosives that deflagrate, by definition, therefore it was not caused by explosives. Period.

You keep ignoring at what point and under what conditions jet fuel detonates.
Two apparently people were killed by the blast:

Reading comprehension again. My explosion does more damage, is more energetic, but affects a wider area. Its peak overpressure is lower, as is its pressure-impulse on objects close by, as compared to the truck bomb. But it affects a much wider area. You're thinking about this in only one dimension, and that won't work.

Well I see I have to prove you wrong again. Nobody was killed eh? Lets examine what Phillip Morrellis has to say about that:
“And then all of a sudden it happened all over again. Building Two got hit. I don't know that. I just know something else hit us to the floor. Right in the basement you felt it. The walls were caving in. Everything that was going on. I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got re-constructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face.”
You know injuries consistent with concussion and incident overpressure not burns from fire.
Not only that, based upon the 'detonation' of the impact and the energy released, (a portion of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel) there should be no survivors on the impacted floors, but alas we have Mr. Stanley harrowing tale of survival.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that, in order to do the damage seen in 2001 -- since it affected a wider area -- if it was explosives, it would have to be more explosives than were used in 1993. It's very simple to understand.

An what point are you equating the damage in 2001 with the damage (which you have never described in this discussion for some reason) with 1993?

1. The "bomb" in 2001 affected a larger area than the bomb in 1993.

Source?

2. If the "bomb" in 2001 was, in fact, a bomb, it would have to be larger than the one in 1993.

Source? It would not have to be larger. You lack of explosive ordinance is shining through.

3. This larger bomb would have killed many people outright due to blast.

You leave out everything in between the blast itself and the victims. Most if not all people in 1993 were believed to have died from a wall collapsing, not from the blast. But you do have burned victims from the 1993 bomb blast much like the blast in 2001.

4. This did not happen. Therefore we need another explanation.

Rjected due to 1,2,3.

5. Jet fuel deflagration would affect a larger area, but would also be less lethal in terms of blast.

You have now just described a difference in the energy release, via the lethality of the blast.
So now your saying jet fuel creates a different blast than tnt? This is exactly what I was pointing out in the above parts. Thanks for clarifying the difference in the way the potential stored energy is released.

6. Therefore, a "bomb" similar to the 1993 event is ruled out. Deflagration is still a viable candidate.

6 is rejected due to the above points, deflagration is a viable candidate for fireball or balls in 3 of the elevator shafts, but deflagration for blast damage is ruled out as a cause of structure damage away from elevator shafts.

Once again, no "pools" are needed. Even Willie Rodriguez reported smelling jet fuel. The witnesses are all on my side, Swing

.
Do you smell those cookies again? Now all you are missing is seeing the actual jet fuel prior to ignition caused the blast damage in the basement levels...even a cave in 200 feet away from the nearest shaft!

As discussed above, this would be utterly capricious, inefficient, and self-inconsistent. Hardly the work of master conspirators. Your imagination runs wild, but runs poorly.

1. Not at all. You merely fail to understand the NIST Report.

I understand it just fine. I have a problem when people like yourself who claim to be an expert on the report quote it incorrectly as pointed out above.

2. Indeed I do, and this is not secret. Try reading what I write sometime.

I do. That offer still stands on the peer-review of your own paper.

3. Many people recognize errors in NIST. This doesn't in any way affect the unavoidable conclusion that what we saw was due to aircraft impact, and aircraft impact alone.

Now your back to global collapse again! Stay on topic!
4. Nope. You simply can't understand even a simple derivation.

5. Nope. And please learn the following words: detonate, deflagrate, low explosive, high explosive, brisance, shock wave, pressure wave, and sound speed.

Oh I'm quite aware of those words. I'm also aware that you applied the same characteristics and processes to jet fuel as you did to TNT.

6. Very little structural damage, yes. Perfectly ordinary. Kind of like the difference between FAEs and conventional bombs. Actually, almost exactly like that.

But yet no one was fighting fires in the basement were they? But yet many accounts of structural damage not commonly associated with a fireball.

7. Nope. Read more closely. I just don't need the detail to run that calculation. By the way, if you ever find a witness that saw a truck bomb and hasn't changed his story eleven times, then I might begin to take you seriously.

Sure you do. You stated above that jet fuel is less lethal in terms of blast than a bomb. We agree!
That goes back to the difference in energy release of course. Something you seem to have avoided. Those truck bombs aren't made to withstand their own detonation and the collapse of 3 buildings to provide that empirical evidence you seek.

Point of interest: The fuel explosion in my model is only 1% of the jet fuel available. If it was somehow possible to trigger all of the jet fuel inside a WTC Tower as an optimal fuel-air explosion, the total energy release

would be an amazing 1.25TJ, or equivalent to 290,000 pounds of TNT. Naturally, it's nearly impossible to set off such a massive and complex FAE, but if it was done, the entire Tower would be blasted to pieces, instantly. Lots of energy in that jet fuel.

And for the finale….it is nearly impossible to set off a massive and complex FAE, but according to RMackey’s world, the nearly impossible was indeed achieved by a much more complex and smaller FAE in the basement! Classic!
Your theory:
1. Lots of jet fuel after a massive plane crash...
2. Makes it way to the basement all at once, in one volume, undetected...and
3. Happens to have the necessary fuel/air ratio to detonate...
4. To cause damage in specific areas on multiple levels not necessarily in the vicinity of the shafts...
5. ...twice....

Rmackey, you sir are my new Professor of Contradictions and Impossibilities.
Stick to rockets because you would be laughed out of the classroom.

 

[Norseman]

3. Happens to have the necessary fuel/air ratio to detonate...

We are talking about deflagration not detonations here Swing Dangler, and so we have all the way. A deflagration is more than enough to generate the necessary pressure to knock down some drywalls or masonry block walls. From Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn, Ret:

EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION DESTRUCTIVE PEAK PRESSURE
GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE: 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE: 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE: 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99 FATALITIES: 99 PSI

 

[Hellbound]

Swing:

Deflagration.

DEFLAGRATION.

D-E-F-L-A-G-R-A-T-I-O-N.

For comaprison:

Detonation.

DETONATION

D-E-T-O-N-A-T-I-O-N.

Notice the difference? I believe you were speaking of straw...of course, that's giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you actually understand something about explosives.

So, are you ignorant (lacking knowledge of the difference between detonation and deflagration, as well as general knowledge of explosives and flammables) or dishonest (intentionally misrepresenting the arguments against you in order to try and discredit those who have countered your arguments)? Or both?

 

[BenBurch]

I vote both.

 

[leftysergeant]

And for the finale….it is nearly impossible to set off a massive and complex FAE,

And you base that absurd statement on what?

but according to RMackey’s world, the nearly impossible was indeed achieved by a much more complex and smaller FAE in the basement!

Happens all the time. It's usually referred to as a "backdraft."

1. Lots of jet fuel after a massive plane crash...
2. Makes it way to the basement all at once, in one volume, undetected...and
3. Happens to have the necessary fuel/air ratio to detonate...
4. To cause damage in specific areas on multiple levels not necessarily in the vicinity of the shafts...
5. ...twice...

Considering that the fuel did not have to stay in specific shafts, but could spread between several, it is logical that the would be explosions in more than one location. The vapor in a particular shaft would quite likely have been too oxygen-deprived to ignite on one floor, but may have suddenly gained enough air to deflagrate on another.

Of course, you are assuming that all available fuel would have been consumed in one big WHOOF! Such is not always the case.

Did you know that, if your fuel mixture is too rich, it is possible to set fire to the exhaust from your automobile?

 

[Hellbound]

lefty:

To be fair, a backdraft is not an FAE, and FAE's are hard to get set off properly: i.e.-explosively. You do need a very specific range of fuel to air ratios (depends on what fuel you use).

They are easy to set off as deflagrations, though...which is comaprable to your backdraft.

The problem is Swingy conflating the two seperate methods of reaction: explosive/detonation versus combustive/deflagration. A detonation would still have a produced a major pressure wave, with a huge amount of blast injuries and a lot of structural damage (FAEs are the weapon of choice for taking out non-hardended structures-they're good at it). The damage and injuries are more consistent with a deflagration, like when you light a puddle of gasoline on a hot day after you let it sit for half a minute (only a few hundred times more intense ).