Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Gravy]

I do hope that people will stop wasting their valuable keystrokes on this person, who is amongst the very worst ever to post here. He can't even figure out what can cause sparks in a skyscraper that's on fire and disintegrating. There is no hope for him. None.

Did eyewitnesses report hearing or seeing bombs and demolitions explosives in and around the towers?

 

[thewholesoul]

you could at least apologise about your willingness to "disrespect" family members because you may "disagree" with them. do you not have an ounce of civilty? .

Appeal to emotion.

no its not an appeal to emotion its an appeal to his civility and common decency. because you disagree with anothers opinion it DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT to disrespect that person.

supporting your little buddy on this issue only reflects poorly on your own moral integrity.

 

[funk de fino]

may be instead of smart comments you could provide an answer to teh question. what produced the sparks that are purported to have ignited the jet fuel?

by failing to answer this relatively simple question it is you that looks bad, not me.

no, by asking the question it makes you look far worse

how is anyone supposed to know exactly what heat source or spark caused the fireball to ignite? it is a nigh on impossibility to know 100% what caused it

it is easier to know what did not cause it, but unfortunately you cannot even get this correct

you really are off the deep end pal, you really are making a fool of yourself

 

[thewholesoul]

no, by asking the question it makes you look far worse

how is anyone supposed to know exactly what heat source or spark caused the fireball to ignite? it is a nigh on impossibility to know 100% what caused it

it is easier to know what did not cause it, but unfortunately you cannot even get this correct

you really are off the deep end pal, you really are making a fool of yourself

i beg to differ my firend.

the simple question was asked "what caused the jet fuel to ignite"? this is an extremely important and relevant question because whatever caused the jet fuel to ignite is responsible for the "explosion" experienced by over 20 people in the basment.

now two explanations were suggested by grravy. (a) flamming debris and (b) sparks.

the first causal explanation is absurd. how could the burning debris make it all the way down to b2-3 level without igniting jet fuel all the way down? it makes no sense. but maybe it did happen - in that case an experiment should be conducted in order to prove that it can happen.

the second causal explanation is ambiguous. what caused the sparks? an intact elevator shaft does not produce "sparks" randomly out of nowhere. this would be hazardous and i seriously doubt that an elevator shaft would be certified if it was randomly producing "sparks" out of nowhere. if you cannot provide an adequate explanation as to what caused the sparks then it must be abandoned. and if or when you find somethhing that could plausibly have produced a spark then we could experiment with this and jet fuel to determine whether it can ignite descending jet fuel.

now you ask "how is anyone supposed to know exactly what heat source or spark caused the fireball to ignite?"

so here we find a new causal explanation being introduced - "heat". please explain to me what was the heat source that ignited the jet fuel and was located within the elevator shaft of b2-3 level in both tower 1 and 2. and if you find a heat source then we should make an experiment to prove whether such a heat source can ignite descending jet fuel.

perhaps you dont need to know exactly what caused the fireball - but i do expect NIST to know. after all they claim to know exactly what happened to the fireproofing and core columns, trusses et cetera. ok, it may not have been part of their investigation but that does not mean that whatever caused the "explosion" in the basement should not or could not be investigated.

now whatever reason provided must make a little sense, just a little. it makes perfect sense that jet fuel could ignite and explode, it makes perfect sense that flamming debris could ignite jet fuel but it does not make sense that this could happen in the basement.

to beleive that it does one needs to believe that a buring piece of debris fell down the elevator shaft then slipped past the space between the elevator and elevator shaft without igniting any fuel that may be there and then after passing the elevator shaft it explodes at the b2-3 level in both tower 1 and 2. it sounds a bit like the magic bullet theory in JFK.

now if it was actually the cause then we should be able to reproduce the effect somehow through experimentation in order to prove that flamming debris igniting jet fuel did cause the explosion in the basement.

if flamming debris, sparks of an unknown origin, and heat from an unknown source, are claimed to be responsible for igniting the jet fuel in the b2-3 basement then all these hypothesis need to be explained and proven.

here is a cool video on youtube which demonstrates how a thermate reaction produces sparks and heat and explodes when in contact with fuel.

i do not beleive that i look foolish by asking simple questions that you are unable to answer.

these questions are extremely relevant for those who defend the official hypothesis and for those who do not. they are extremely relevant to the topic in this thread. and if you cannot find the answers in the gospel according to NIST that only proves that there is still areas that could be investigated. and just because you cannot find an answer to a simple question it does not give you the right to resort to personal insults or belittling of my question. any objective reader would soon realise that your negative and unproductive responses reflect poorly on you not me.

 

[Gravy]

This summary is only based on accounts I collected for and included in my Rodriguez paper.
Bold floor numbers indicate multiple reports for those floors.
​

64 people on 43 levels below the impact zones reported smelling or contacting jet fuel/kerosene on these floors

North Tower: 87, 85, 83, 81, 78, 63, 62, 60, 57, 53, 52, 47, 46, 40, 39, 36, 35, 34, 33, 29, 27, 25, 13, 12, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, Plaza level, Concourse, B1, B6, and one unknown floor.

South Tower: 75, 74, 68, 61, 40, 25, Plaza Level, Concourse.


33 people on 18 levels below the impact zones reported seeing fireballs coming from elevator shafts or down hallways

North Tower: 91, 88, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 7, Plaza Level, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown level).

South Tower: 75, 70, Plaza level, Concourse.


29 people on 19 levels below the impact zones described fires on these floors

North Tower: 89, 88, 85, 83, 81, 78, 77, 72, 53, 46, 45, 22, 4, Plaza level, Concourse, Unknown upper levels.

South Tower: 50, Concourse.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
49 people on 23 levels below the impact zones reported seeing elevators/shaft doors blown out or severely damaged.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif] North Tower: 89, 88, 86, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 45, 22, 3, Plaza Level, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown levels). [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
South Tower: 78, 74, 44, Concourse, one unknown level. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

8 people on 4 levels below the impact zones were burned in elevators and survived (does not include ST 78th floor)[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 78, Concourse, B1.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
South Tower: Concourse.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

14 people on 9 levels below the impact zones survived burns or other injuries from blasts from elevator shafts[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 89, 88, 85, 83, 78, Concourse, B1, B4, B6. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

26 people on 17 levels below the impact zones reported fallen elevators (11 were in the elevators and survived).[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 91, 88, 78, 47, 42, 27, 15, 7, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown level), Unknown upper levels.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
South Tower: 19, 12, Concourse. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

13 (non-deaf) people on 12 levels below the impact zone didn’t hear the aircraft impact/explosion on their building[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 88, 81, 72, 62, 60, 50, 35, 34, 28, 8, Concourse, B6. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

50 people on 31 levels below the impact zones described significant secondary damage (walls down, doors jammed, broken pipes, stairwells disintegrating, etc. Not intended to suggest structural damage.)[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 88, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 76, 74, 72, 71, 68, 63, 40, 30, 29, 22, 21, Plaza level, Concourse, B1, B4, B6, Basement (level unknown) [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]South Tower: 76, 70, 68, 67, 40, Plaza level, Concourse. [/FONT]​

 

[thewholesoul]

these idiots have to go back to freaking elementary school. the first thing they TEACH you about FIRE safety is that you need three ingredients to start a fire: FUEL, OXYGEN and HEAT! there was a hell a lot of fuel! A TON of oxygen and damn, those planes are the SOURCE of the heat!

so the jet fuel according to you ignited without a spark, or flamming debris??

the "explosion" in the basement according to you was produced from jet fuel that was heated by the plane impact.

were you not thought in elementary school that a hot solid or liquid will decrease in energy (i.e. heat) the further it moves away from the source of its energy???

i am not sure but i would expect jet fuel to evaporate when heated not to spontaneously explode in the absense of some kind of ignition while it happens to be cooling as it descends through the air further away from the heat source.

 

[phunk]

There are lots of ignition sources that are perfectly safe in normal everyday operation but not safe in an atmosphere loaded with fuel.

Just about every type of electrical switch, from the light switch on the wall to a relay turning on the light to indicate what floor the elevator is on, will produce a spark as it switches. Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.

Electric motors in just about any mechanical device produce sparks. How do you think those elevator doors open? Electric motors.

A piece of debris falling down the elevator shaft and hitting the concrete floor at the bottom could produce a spark.

A falling elevator with its emergency break engaged can produce sparks.

A hot light bulb with jet fuel splashed on it could shatter, and ignite the fuel.

There are hundreds of possible ignition sources, no need to list them all. In fact it would be amazing if you could pour jet fuel down an elevator shaft and NOT have it find an ignition source.

 

[thewholesoul]

This summary is only based on accounts I collected for and included in my Rodriguez paper.
Bold floor numbers indicate multiple reports for those floors.
​

64 people on 43 levels below the impact zones reported smelling or contacting jet fuel/kerosene on these floors

North Tower: 87, 85, 83, 81, 78, 63, 62, 60, 57, 53, 52, 47, 46, 40, 39, 36, 35, 34, 33, 29, 27, 25, 13, 12, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, Plaza level, Concourse, B1, B6, and one unknown floor.

South Tower: 75, 74, 68, 61, 40, 25, Plaza Level, Concourse.


33 people on 18 levels below the impact zones reported seeing fireballs coming from elevator shafts or down hallways

North Tower: 91, 88, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 7, Plaza Level, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown level).

South Tower: 75, 70, Plaza level, Concourse.


29 people on 19 levels below the impact zones described fires on these floors

North Tower: 89, 88, 85, 83, 81, 78, 77, 72, 53, 46, 45, 22, 4, Plaza level, Concourse, Unknown upper levels.

South Tower: 50, Concourse.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
49 people on 23 levels below the impact zones reported seeing elevators/shaft doors blown out or severely damaged.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif] North Tower: 89, 88, 86, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 45, 22, 3, Plaza Level, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown levels). [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
South Tower: 78, 74, 44, Concourse, one unknown level. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

8 people on 4 levels below the impact zones were burned in elevators and survived (does not include ST 78th floor)[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 78, Concourse, B1.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
South Tower: Concourse.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

14 people on 9 levels below the impact zones survived burns or other injuries from blasts from elevator shafts[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 89, 88, 85, 83, 78, Concourse, B1, B4, B6. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

26 people on 17 levels below the impact zones reported fallen elevators (11 were in the elevators and survived).[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 91, 88, 78, 47, 42, 27, 15, 7, Concourse, B1, B4, Basement (unknown level), Unknown upper levels.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
South Tower: 19, 12, Concourse. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

13 (non-deaf) people on 12 levels below the impact zone didn’t hear the aircraft impact/explosion on their building[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 88, 81, 72, 62, 60, 50, 35, 34, 28, 8, Concourse, B6. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

50 people on 31 levels below the impact zones described significant secondary damage (walls down, doors jammed, broken pipes, stairwells disintegrating, etc. Not intended to suggest structural damage.)[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
North Tower: 88, 85, 83, 82, 81, 78, 77, 76, 74, 72, 71, 68, 63, 40, 30, 29, 22, 21, Plaza level, Concourse, B1, B4, B6, Basement (level unknown) [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]South Tower: 76, 70, 68, 67, 40, Plaza level, Concourse. [/FONT]​

nice post grravy.

but lacking is an explanation how burning debris could ignite the jet fuel in the basment. lacking is an explanation as to what caused the "alleged" sparks that ignited the jet fuel.

there is no-one in this forum that believes that fireballs were not present in the building. but what caused the fireballs? was it fuel deflagration which if i am not mistaken requires some kind of ignition? or was it caused by a thermite reaction? as you can see demonstrated by experiment in the following link Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1 thermite can ignite fuel and cause an explosion.

so how about it grravy...any word on the cause behind the explosion in the basement or would you prefer to hide behind the testimony of fireballs which no-one here is disputing.

perhaps not being an expert on anything you could answer the question honestly and say - i dont know - what caused the jet fuel to ignite 90+ floors below the impact. that the explanations you did provide were only an educated guess that once we subject to critical reasoning seem to fall apart as quickly as you came up with them.

 

[Gravy]

There are lots of ignition sources that are perfectly safe in normal everyday operation but not safe in an atmosphere loaded with fuel.

Just about every type of electrical switch, from the light switch on the wall to a relay turning on the light to indicate what floor the elevator is on, will produce a spark as it switches. Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.

Electric motors in just about any mechanical device produce sparks. How do you think those elevator doors open? Electric motors.

A piece of debris falling down the elevator shaft and hitting the concrete floor at the bottom could produce a spark.

A falling elevator with its emergency break engaged can produce sparks.

A hot light bulb with jet fuel splashed on it could shatter, and ignite the fuel.

There are hundreds of possible ignition sources, no need to list them all. In fact it would be amazing if you could pour jet fuel down an elevator shaft and NOT have it find an ignition source.

Yes, indeedy. Plus the fact that – how can I put this delicately? –

the cores of the buildings were directly hit by airliners, which created giant, multiple-floor masses of burning, shifting, disintegrating wreckage and rubble. Golly, how could any of that have fallen down elevator shafts?

I say this for the onlookers, not for the sad, lost souls we've had here lately.

 

[Lurker]

But Gravy, TWS has challenged you to find the one true source of the spark. Not just list possibilities. He expects you to commit to one source and only one source as if you were remote viewing the elevator shaft and could actually see what happened. IT is completely beyond the point that myriad possibilities exist. TWS needs the one true source.

At the risk of being quote-mined I submit "I don't know what caused the spark that ignited the fireball...but there was no dearth of legitimate sources." I was helpful to 911 truthers that want to misquote me, they can cut my quote off at the "...".

 

[Gravy]

But Gravy, TWS has challenged you to find the one true source of the spark. Not just list possibilities. He expects you to commit to one source and only one source as if you were remote viewing the elevator shaft and could actually see what happened. IT is completely beyond the point that myriad possibilities exist. TWS needs the one true source.

At the risk of being quote-mined I submit "I don't know what caused the spark that ignited the fireball...but there was no dearth of legitimate sources." I was helpful to 911 truthers that want to misquote me, they can cut my quote off at the "...".

He can challenge away: I've had him on ignore for a while. One thing's for sure: that kid needs a spark in a bad way.

You will probably be quoted as, "I don't know what caused...the fireball...no...legitimate sources."

 

[thewholesoul]

There are lots of ignition sources that are perfectly safe in normal everyday operation but not safe in an atmosphere loaded with fuel.

Just about every type of electrical switch, from the light switch on the wall to a relay turning on the light to indicate what floor the elevator is on, will produce a spark as it switches. Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.

Electric motors in just about any mechanical device produce sparks. How do you think those elevator doors open? Electric motors.

A piece of debris falling down the elevator shaft and hitting the concrete floor at the bottom could produce a spark.

A falling elevator with its emergency break engaged can produce sparks.

A hot light bulb with jet fuel splashed on it could shatter, and ignite the fuel.

There are hundreds of possible ignition sources, no need to list them all. In fact it would be amazing if you could pour jet fuel down an elevator shaft and NOT have it find an ignition source.

First of all i want to thank you for your reply. It was well thought out and contained no insults or slurs.

There are lots of ignition sources that are perfectly safe in normal everyday operation but not safe in an atmosphere loaded with fuel.

How many ignition sources are there exactly? You claim there are hundreds but i would be sceptical of this claim. I do not expect and would never demand that you produce a list either as there are other ways solve this issue.

Just about every type of electrical switch, from the light switch on the wall to a relay turning on the light to indicate what floor the elevator is on, will produce a spark as it switches. Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.

Electric motors in just about any mechanical device produce sparks. How do you think those elevator doors open? Electric motors.

You suggest three possible ignition points for the jet fuel.

1- Light switches on the wall are not inside the elevator shaft. They are either inside the elevator itself or outside the elevator shaft. Because the occupants inside the freight elevator did not report a fireball inside their elevator then this explanation should be abandoned. Because the jet fuel exploded below the freight elevator before it arrived at the basement level this explanation should be abandoned. Because the jet fuel could only travel down the elevator shaft and not stop and take a left passing a closed door to reach light switches on the wall outside the elevator shaft this explanation must be abandoned for the simple reason the jet fuel had no access to the light switches outside the elevator shaft. but if my assumption is wrong and there are light switches inside the elevator shafts thatn i am assuming that they are covered and that the jet fuel that reached the b2-3 level was in liquid not vapor form.

2 - you then mention the light that indicates what floor the elevator is on. Again these lights are either inside the elevator itself or outside the elevator shaft. Thus for the same reaosns above this explanation must be abandoned.

3 - When elevator doors open an electronic motor produces sparks. I agree but you will agree that it only produces sparks when the elevator door is actually opening. because we know that people were still inside the descending freight elevator car we know that the doors to the freight elevator could not have been opening. Elevator doors only open when the elevator arrives and stops at that floor. So if the jet fuel ignited from an elevator door opening but we know that elevator doors at b2-3 were not opening because the freight elevator had not yet arrived then we must abandon this explanation.

There is another thing you mentioned that is worth noting. You say that “Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.” I agree but if you are claiming that “vapor” descended 90+floors and then exploded then you must explain how “vapor” can descend. “vapor” will naturally behave more like a gas. It seems more plausible to me that jet fuel in a “liquid state” fell down the elevator shaft.

A piece of debris falling down the elevator shaft and hitting the concrete floor at the bottom could produce a spark.

The floor at the bottom of the towers was at B6 which is 3-4 levels below where the explosion was reported to have occured. Can sparks jump up 3-4 levels? Besides no explosion was reported to have had occured at the b6 level.

Can falling debris – consisting of concrete produce a "spark" when it collides with a concrete floor? I dont think so. I dont even think that steel could produce a spark from colliding with a concrete floor.

A falling elevator with its emergency break engaged can produce sparks.

I am very glad you mentioned this. If indeed the emergency breaks of a falling elevator can poduce sparks then why did the jet fuel not ignite and obliterate the fright elevator car which was using its emergency breaks for several floors?

A hot light bulb with jet fuel splashed on it could shatter, and ignite the fuel.

I have to say i would be sceptical of this. But let us assume that liquid fuel when splashed onto a hot light bulb will shatter the light bulb. Where is the light bulb? Is it inside the elevator shaft or outside the elevator shaft? We know there are light bulbs inside the elevator but that does not serve your purpose. if the light bulbs are inside the elevator shaft it would also depend on what type of light bulb it is. but i dont know whether light bulbs were inside and exposed within the elevator shaft.

There are hundreds of possible ignition sources, no need to list them all. In fact it would be amazing if you could pour jet fuel down an elevator shaft and NOT have it find an ignition source.

This is why i love science. According to you it is impoosible that jet fuel pouring down an elevator shaft will not find an ignition source. I disagree.

Now the best way to settle this is to conduct some kind of experiment to prove whether or not your assumption is true or not. I would expect that jet fuel will not find an ignition source in an elevator shaft. Now through the scientfic method we could settle this issue.

If the jet fuel did find an ignition source i would be proven wrong and i would automatically abandon the explosives in the basement hypothesis. But what would you believe if the jet fuel did not find an ignition source after 100 trials?

 

[phunk]

How many ignition sources are there exactly? You claim there are hundreds but i would be sceptical of this claim. I do not expect and would never demand that you produce a list either as there are other ways solve this issue.

Nor was I trying to give an exhaustive list. Just some of the possibilities.

1- Light switches on the wall are not inside the elevator shaft.

Not that I was trying to suggest that there was someone in there flipping a lightswitch at the time either, just mentioning one of the many ignition sources possible. Every elevator shaft I've seen the inside of has had lighting. This makes it likely that there are switches also.

2 - you then mention the light that indicates what floor the elevator is on. Again these lights are either inside the elevator itself or outside the elevator shaft. Thus for the same reaosns above this explanation must be abandoned.

The lights themselves are outside the shaft. What I was talking about is the relays that control those lights. I could be wrong, but I think it's unlikely that the back of those panels is hermetically sealed off from the shaft.

3 - When elevator doors open an electronic motor produces sparks. I agree but you will agree that it only produces sparks when the elevator door is actually opening. because we know that people were still inside the descending freight elevator car we know that the doors to the freight elevator could not have been opening. Elevator doors only open when the elevator arrives and stops at that floor. So if the jet fuel ignited from an elevator door opening but we know that elevator doors at b2-3 were not opening because the freight elevator had not yet arrived then we must abandon this explanation.

I was simply listing an electrical device that's 100% guaranteed to be exposed to the inside of an elevator shaft. An elevator door also has sensors on the inside to detect something obstructing the door as it closes. Those are electrical too.

There is another thing you mentioned that is worth noting. You say that “Expensive environmentally sealed switches are needed in any environment where there are possible explosive vapors.” I agree but if you are claiming that “vapor” descended 90+floors and then exploded then you must explain how “vapor” can descend. “vapor” will naturally behave more like a gas. It seems more plausible to me that jet fuel in a “liquid state” fell down the elevator shaft.

Indeed, it would fall mostly as a liquid, which would cause it to disperse into small drops, splash on the walls, etc. Dropping a liquid that far would give it a HUGE surface area and greatly speed up its evaporation, so you'd have both liquid and vapor.

The floor at the bottom of the towers was at B6 which is 3-4 levels below where the explosion was reported to have occured. Can sparks jump up 3-4 levels? Besides no explosion was reported to have had occured at the b6 level.

Can falling debris – consisting of concrete produce a "spark" when it collides with a concrete floor? I dont think so. I dont even think that steel could produce a spark from colliding with a concrete floor.

Why only consisting of concrete? And why only impacting the floor? The debris could have been anything in the planes or the building, and it could have impacted anything along the sides of the elevator shaft all the way down to the bottom. Heck, even if it was the concrete, wasn't there rebar embedded in that? And what about the wire conduits inside the elevator shafts, could they not be broken by falling debris causing electrical shorts?

I am very glad you mentioned this. If indeed the emergency breaks of a falling elevator can poduce sparks then why did the jet fuel not ignite and obliterate the fright elevator car which was using its emergency breaks for several floors?

Don't know, maybe the car fell ahead of the fuel? If it fell because the impact cut the cables, then it was below the impact, so it had a head start. Anyone know what floor the freight elevator fell from?

I have to say i would be sceptical of this. But let us assume that liquid fuel when splashed onto a hot light bulb will shatter the light bulb. Where is the light bulb? Is it inside the elevator shaft or outside the elevator shaft? We know there are light bulbs inside the elevator but that does not serve your purpose. if the light bulbs are inside the elevator shaft it would also depend on what type of light bulb it is. but i dont know whether light bulbs were inside and exposed within the elevator shaft.

See the answer to question 1. There is lighting inside an elevator shaft.

Also, no need to assume, hot bulbs can shatter when liqiuds spray on them:

This is why i love science. According to you it is impoosible that jet fuel pouring down an elevator shaft will not find an ignition source. I disagree.

I did not use the word impossible.

Now the best way to settle this is to conduct some kind of experiment to prove whether or not your assumption is true or not. I would expect that jet fuel will not find an ignition source in an elevator shaft. Now through the scientfic method we could settle this issue.

If the jet fuel did find an ignition source i would be proven wrong and i would automatically abandon the explosives in the basement hypothesis. But what would you believe if the jet fuel did not find an ignition source after 100 trials?

Ok, good luck finding a building to test the theory.

 

[A W Smith]

TheSoleHole has displayed an excellent example of goal post moving.

1. Provide a source for for jet vapor ignition
2. OK. fine, provide examples
3. OK fine. provide how many
4. OK fine I doubt there are a thousand provide a thousand examples

static electricity can also ignite fuel vapor,

You dont need me to list a thousand sources of static electricity do you?

 

[Belz...]

i will explain to you again. the official theory is not proven. the official hypothesis is accepted by supporters of the official hypothesis. it is not accepted by supporters of the demolition hypothesis.

That it is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven:

The (much) larger number of professionals in the related fields agree that that theory is correct. It fits the facts, it requires no additional assumptions, and several of its components are observable in 'similar' events.

the official hypothesis asserts that the buildings were demolished due to gravity. it is a FACT that this assertion has not been proven by the scientific method.

Soul, most experts on the planet, and most laymen who looked into this matter as well, agree that the plane impacts, and subsequent fires, initiated the collapse. ANYONE with a modicrum of knowledge in physics and building construction will tell you that once the collapse begins, there is no way to stop it. But don't take my word for it. Ask around.

if the official hypothesis is proven then the demolition hypothesis is debunked. if the official hypothesis is tested and cannot be proven then we must abandon the official hypothesis and test an alternative hypothesis.

Soul, you have no idea what you're talking about. Two 767s crashed at full speed into two of the largest skyscrapers in the world. This, I hope, you agree with. There IS NO EVIDENCE of explosives, as you've so far ignored, but there IS evidence of structural compromisation while the fires raged. Even if this was the only evidence we had, which of the two scenarios is more credible ?

i am educated enough not to resort to insults when engaging in a dialogue

When talking to a wall, it doesn't matter if you use logic or insults: the old paint doesn't peel away.

if there is no shortage of testimony claiming they heard explosions it is a utterly ridiculous statemnet to say that "not a single explosion was heard on video"

That is illogical. One has nothing to do with the other. I said that not a single explosion is heard, and when I asked you to provide a link to prove your contention that there was, you say the above. Very telling.

even if there was no video footage of explosions heard it does not NEGATE the testimony.

Of course not. But since testimony is always unreliable, we have to determine the truth value of those reports with skepticism. There is NO physical evidence of explosives, no visual evidence of explosives on the videos and no audio evidence of explosives in said videos.

People who hear sudden, loud noises often describe them as explosions. Also, a lot of things explode when in a fire, so it's hasty to conclude that a few (and that's a few) reports of 'explosions' means explosives were used.

but here is a list of videos i found on youtube where you can hear with your own ears explosions. enjoy.

Evasion noted. You cannot link to any video where those sounds are heard. Case closed.

as i said i will get to the traces of explosives found on a later date.

Get to them now and shut me up, instead.

and maybe you can provide me with a list of "all the knids if stuff" that are responsible for the explosions that were heard

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all.

the burden of proof rests on your assumption - "It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass".

Stating a fact does not place a burden of proof on me.

But, hey! You truthers are so dedicated to the truth, surely you can pool your ressources, build a scaled-down model of the tower, about, say, twenty stories high, and blow up a floor around the 16th to see what happens. Just don't forget to scale down the structural elements non-linearly.

it is a fact that only the official hypothesis is being investigated.

HAS been investigated.

now here the beauty, if or when the official hypothesis is proven then that will automatically debunk alternative hypothesis but if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned. so logically we both have an invested interest in any efforts aimed at proving the official hypothesis.

None of this makes any sense whatsoever. You have no idea what you're talking about.

yes we do have to prove that every engineer on the planet is right.

Interesting. Why would we have to prove things proven all over again, all the time, just because a few hard-liners won't accept it ?

 

[Belz...]

no its not an appeal to emotion its an appeal to his civility and common decency. because you disagree with anothers opinion it DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT to disrespect that person.

supporting your little buddy on this issue only reflects poorly on your own moral integrity.

Appeal to emotions.

 

[Belz...]

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them.

No, that is definitely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you should check some of your assumptions before you procede with your reply.

Well, Soul ? Come on, I'm sure even you can solve that one!

 

[JimBenArm]

hey everybody

what caused the ignition of the jet fuel in the elevator shaft? does anybody know?

It was me. I was having a smoke, and tossed the butt into the shaft. I know, pretty careless of me...

 

[Arus808]

holy damn, thewholesole just feined ignorance on what can cause a fire, in a fuel ladened environment, that happened to be CRASHED BY A BIG FREAKING AIRPLANE!???

 

[thewholesoul]

Not that I was trying to suggest that there was someone in there flipping a lightswitch at the time either, just mentioning one of the many ignition sources possible. Every elevator shaft I've seen the inside of has had lighting. This makes it likely that there are switches also.

there is a lot we dont know about those elevator shafts. for instance whether or not there were lights even in the shaft, how many were there, what kind of lights were they, were they in an exposed position in relation to falling jet fuel, were light switches in the shaft, if so, where were they located, were they exposed etc etc. if they were inside the shaft they yes that would be a possible ignition source. the next part requires a simple experiment with jet fuel an elevator shaft and the light bulbs in question.

The lights themselves are outside the shaft. What I was talking about is the relays that control those lights. I could be wrong, but I think it's unlikely that the back of those panels is hermetically sealed off from the shaft.

this is a good point you make. once again if the relays are inside the shaft then you have successfully identified another possible ignition point. it would be nice to have more information though on the design of the shaft in terms of these little details. and once again we have the tools for another experiment i.e. the relay elevator shaft and jet fuel. once something like that is proven to ignite jet fuel then that would go along way debunking alternative hypothesis.

I was simply listing an electrical device that's 100% guaranteed to be exposed to the inside of an elevator shaft. An elevator door also has sensors on the inside to detect something obstructing the door as it closes. Those are electrical too.

you see if every door has this exposed electrical device then why did the jet fuel not ignite before it reached B2-3 in both the north and south tower? you see this coincidence bugs me a little. if indeed there were ignition points all over the elevator shaft one would expect an "explosion" to have occured on the different levels contrary to Morelli's testimony. for example, one would expect an explosion not to have occured in the basement. or if it did occur in the basment in a lower section perhaps down in B5-6 level. but according to Morelli's testimony an explosion seems to have occured in the identical location in both towers despite the shafts having ignition points all the way down from the imapct zone and despite all the other variables that one would expect would have caused the explosion to occur in different areas e.g. the distance the jet fuel had to descend differs, different fuel-air ratio etc etc

in any case we have another possible ignition site that could be easily tested for proof.

Indeed, it would fall mostly as a liquid, which would cause it to disperse into small drops, splash on the walls, etc. Dropping a liquid that far would give it a HUGE surface area and greatly speed up its evaporation, so you'd have both liquid and vapor.

the only avenue of descent was down the elevator shaft. no someone in here was kind enough to post the schematics of the shaft itself. i cant remember which post it was exactly. however the liquid jet fuel must travel down the sides of the elevator walls between the elevator and the shaft. from eduardo Maccabes tetimony it was roughly 30 secs after he felt building moving there was an explosion in the room next to him. i guess one way jet vapor could have past the elevator and reached the basment was by overpressure from the plane imapct and explosion.

so lets say we do have vapor down the shafts below the elevators if the light switches are not being switched, the light bulbs are not exposed or broken, the relay is not exposed etc then the vapor could not have ignited. again it would be great to see an experiment on the exact lights, relays, etc of the wtc if indeed they were located inside the shaft.

Why only consisting of concrete? And why only impacting the floor? The debris could have been anything in the planes or the building, and it could have impacted anything along the sides of the elevator shaft all the way down to the bottom. Heck, even if it was the concrete, wasn't there rebar embedded in that? And what about the wire conduits inside the elevator shafts, could they not be broken by falling debris causing electrical shorts?

thats all you said so i commented on only what your provided.

i agree one would expect that falling debris could of impacted anything along the sides but that did not happen. the falling debris seems to have hit the same b2-3 level in both towers (aswell as other areas of course). for this reason i find it difficult to believe that this was a truly random event.

as for the broken wire conduits you must remember that the shafts below the elevators well still intact and not damaged. and the explosion occured below the freight elevator. i totally accept that elctrical shorts could easily ignite jet fuel but there has to be damage first to create the electrical shorts.

Don't know, maybe the car fell ahead of the fuel? If it fell because the impact cut the cables, then it was below the impact, so it had a head start. Anyone know what floor the freight elevator fell from?

as far as i know it was heading to the 40+ floor. once the cables were cut it began to fell, so it had a head start but when it applied the emergency breaks i would imagine the jet fuel could have past the elevator with some overpressure.

there is lighting inside an elevator shaft.

you basing this assumption on the fact that all the other elevator shafts you have seen had lighting. your most likely right that it had lighting but i would like some more evidecne. and if it has lighting then what kind, was it in an exposed or shethered position etc

Also, no need to assume, hot bulbs can shatter when liqiuds spray on them:

cool, nice link. thats what i love clear proof of something occuring. however not to be a nit picker but there were two problems i had with that experimnet. firstly i am assuming that the bulbs in an elevator shaft would be within the vertical walls whereas in the demonstartion the bulb is exposed in a horizontal position. secondly the jet fuel that hits the bulb horizontally seems to be travelling at some force. its hard to know if a bulb 90+ floor below an impact would be hit with the same force however i would expect it would be lower. of course i could be wrong. in any event i believe the bulb would not be exposed to the falling jet fuel as it would be positioned vertcially in the walls of the elevator shafts.

Ok, good luck finding a building to test the theory.

as the bulb demonstration shows there are many simple ways experimnets can be carried out in order to prove a hypothesis. you have mentioned numerous possible ignitions all of which could be easily tested without having to build the entire twin towers.

go to the "explosion dynamic labratory", they do loads of testing, experimentation in labs, scale modelling and computer simulation. remember the best way to debunk the conspiracy nuts is to prove the official hypothesis.