Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[beachnut]

Large Jet aircraft cause big fires, especially when the engines are going (BTW, pilots are trained to TURN OFF ENGINES before we crash). Hundreds of accidents have shown the fires are big, and even bigger when the engines are running! Those little engines are spinning at 10,000 to 14,000 rpm or more, throwing hot engine parts all over, and the core temperature can be over 2000 degrees, gee whiz the exhaust gas is only 900 C, just twice the auto ignition temperature of jet fuel. Or was it lower? So we have engine parts flying all over the place hotter than the auto ignition temperature of the fuel, crashing into the core of the building and flying all over as engine parts leave the aircraft flung off at speeds over 10,000 rpm!

I am not sure you can keep a fire from happening for hundreds of feet in all directions as SEEN on 9/11, and if you have parts and fuel being accelerated by GRAVITY, I would expect fires to spread down the shafts for 800 feet and more if able! Darn, where did you loose your imagination coupled with a few facts.

Oh, a 600 to 700 foot long fire ball! How did all that fuel get ignited?

I think some people in elevators were burned by jet fuel? How did that light? Anyone have a clue where all that fire came from and what made it catch on fire? Do not let the 2000 degree core of the engine smashing into the core of the WTC make you fall for that one!

 

[I Am He]

What "Hypothesis" do you keep blabbering about, Whole? Yours?
Because if your talking about yours, which one? You have so many of them that no one knows what you are talking about. And personally I don't think you know yourself.

What I don't understand is why everyone here hasn't but you on Ignore for your uneducated replies.


I Am He

 

[Mobyseven]

Thewholesoul:

Do you speak Spanish and French?

 

[Gravy]

I gather from his quoted posts that he does not think that debris from a flaming, disintegrating building can fall down a shaft, and he's focusing on light bulbs and switches. Talk about missing the forest for the trees....

He and Heiwa are breaking forum rules by advertising their commercial venture here:

Clinic for the Chronically Benighted^tm

 

[thewholesoul]

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?[/QUOTE]

i get it, by super sizing your words they become more TRUE and LOUD.

I might try that myself one day.

first point: nobody here is arguing that disintegrating wreckage and rubble could have fallen down the elevator shafts. thats you shadow boxing.

second point: i must have missed the part in your post that explains how disintegrating wreckage and rubble ignites descending jet fuel non-locally? Perhaps your opinion that it was the ignition source was based on the non-existent experimentations conducted by NIST in relation to the question at hand?

third point: The question is whether disintegrating wreckage and rubble was the ignition source of the fuel deflagration in the basement.

well know it can be - http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/facts.html

the explosion dynamics labratory outline various ignition sources. they include: "a hot surface, an electrical arc or spark, static electricity discharge, open flame, or burning metal fragments (e.g. from grinding or incendiary devices), rapidly heated lightbulb filaments and even particles have been used in experiments as a source of ignition.

fourth point: If the disintegrating wreckage and rubble was the mid-air, non-local ignition source of the jet fuel in the basment then one would expect fuel deflagration to have occured all the way down the elevator shaft of the freight elevator car. Because naturally being closer to the source of the impact there would have been more buring wreckage and rubble above the freight elevator car. But this did not happen.

fifth point: If the disintegrating wreckage and rubble was the mid-air, non-local ignition source of the jet fuel in the basment then it must have past the jet fuel that would have accumulated between the elevator and wall of the elevator shaft. Because this is the only area whereby the jet fuel and disintegrating wreckage could have past in order to arrive below the falling elevator one would expect the flash point to have occured here at this point. but we know that this did not happen because the occupants in the freight elevator and the elevator itself would have obliterated if a fuel deflagration occured right on or beside the freight car.

sixth point: So the disntegrating wreckage did not ignite the jet fuel all the way down the elevator shaft, it did not ignite on or beside the falling elevator, rather it ignited the jet fuel 90 floor below the plane impact atr the B2-3 level in mid air and non-locally. If this was not impressive enough the disintegrating wreckage in the south tower also managed to ignite the jet fuel in the same B2-3 level.

seventh point: is this possible? sure, anything is possible. perhaps a part of the disintegrating and descending metal fragments were from incendary devices? yes the fuel deflagration or explosion in the basement could have been caused by falling debris in mid air non-locally but it would be nice to prove this through experimentation. call me a mad scientist but i want to see jet fuel being poured down an elevator shaft just to see what happens. at EDL Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech they do an abundance of expeiments in labs, scale modelling and computer simulation. there is no question that the same could not be done for the explosion in the basmemt scenario.

clearly everyone in this room including myself are specultaing as to the ignition source of the jet fuel. we are speculating because the issue has not been thorougly investigated or tested. and until it has been investigated or tested the alternative hypothesis will not go away my friends. that is my final point

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

no i am not challenging grravy for the one through source. i am merely trying to demonstrate that nobody knows the one true source. that we are all sepcualting due to the lack of testing. so it was never a challenge that non-expert grravy could possibly fulfil given the absence of investigation and testing by NIST in relation to the ignition source behind the explosion in the basement of tower 1 and 2. of course i accept the myriad of possibilities. but each one of those possibilities can be tested through experimentation one by one if necessary.

and you even admit that yourself "I don't know what caused the spark that ignited the fireball...there was no...legitimate sources." hahhahaha i'm only joking amigo - i couldn't resist.

 

[Calcas]

clearly everyone in this room including myself are specultaing as to the ignition source of the jet fuel.

No, they're not.

Only you are playing this absurd game.

It's like speculating on why the planes impacted the exact floors that they did.

It's moot. It DOESN'T matter. Don't you get it? It has NOTHING to do with anything.

I suggest everyone else move along now and leave you to play this stupid game by yourself.

 

[funk de fino]

the wholesoul

you do know what LEL's are dont you?

you are focusing solely on the ignition source when clearly you are forgetting the other two requirements on the fire triangle

you have to have the correct mixture of fuel and oxygen for ignition of an explosive atmosphere

you can have as much fuel as you like but if there is not the correct mixture of fuel with oxygen then it will not ignite even with an ignition source, we do not know at what points in the building and at what times this mixture was present when an ignition source was present, any time there was, then you would get a deflagaration and this could have happened a few times

we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

i work in, and teach about hazardous areas, and electrical systems for use in them, all the time

when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

 

[thewholesoul]

That it (the official hypothesis) is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven:

Did i say that acceptance or popularity was the grounds by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not? No.

Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested. Experimentation and testing is part of the scientific method. Without testing or experimentation a hypothesis will remain unproven.

Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.

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.

Repeat to yourself 10 times – “sometimes the majority can be and has been wrong”.
A prime example is global warming. The so called majority of climatologists are claimed to support the global warming theory. However it still has not been proven definitively that is why there are alternative and competing theories out there i.e. carbon dioxide is not responsible for increasing global temperatures.

Every priest believes that god exists but not one priest has yet proved that god exists.
So yes i agree with you that a large number of professionals agree that the official hypothesis is correct. But without their hypothesis being tested it will remain unproven and its truth will not have been scientifically established.

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.

Not all experts agree. there is a growing number in Aefor 911 truth and laymen that happen to disagree and claim that what is observed fits the demolition or explosives hypothesis.

And to repeat: it is a FACT that the official hypothesis in relation to total collapse has not been proven by the scientific method.

It is not like i am asking you to prove a negative e.g. you must prove that fairy’s dont exist, i am claiming that what actually happened – the total collapse of the first three steel framed skyscrappers in history – to be proven scientifically that it was caused by fire and gravity as in the official 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?

What caused the total collapse – p (fire, gravity) or not p? if we cannot prove that p is true then it must be not p. Thats all i was saying.

I will move onto explsoives as soon as you can accept the FACT that the official hypothesis has not been proven.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

7.Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?
“a full-scale test was not feasible.”

“NIST did not conduct reduced scale system-level tests because there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response.”

10.Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
if you are familiar with previous postings from totovader the propogation of the towers by computer model or simulation is not “technically possible”.

So short of large scale and small scale tests, and short of computer models it is impossible to assert – as you do – that the official hypothesis has been proven.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

Look, you said that not a single explosion is heard. That is simply untrue my firend. I would be crucified in this forum for saying somthing like that. But instead of retracted your false statement you decide to attack me?? I proved my contention that explosions were heard. Below are two true statements. If you have a problem with either true statement then please provide your reasons.

(a)it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony

Paramedic Daniel Rivera “did – you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?...i thought it was that.

Witness timothy burke “the building popped, lower than the fire...i was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion”

Firefighter edward cachia – “it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives...”

Assistant comissioner stephan gregory “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”
What is your official explanation of their testimony Belz? This is the topic of the thread so tell me why these testimonies do not corroborate the testimony of rodriguez?

(b)it is a FACT that explosions can be heard on video footage i sent you

9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby! In this video you can hear a massive explosion after 3 seconds. What did you hear when you watched the video?

Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore. In this video you have sound software. Again you can hear a massive explosion before the tower begins to collapse. What did you hear in the video?

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings. This video not only can you hear an explosion at the very beginning it is not debunkable because it only features reporters that day that reported what they and others perceived that day i.e. explosions and secondary devices within the buildings

I think that is enough proof that explosions were heard by witnesses and are present in video footage. that is not to say of course that the explosions they heard were caused by explosives. but to say that no explosions was heard is absurd.

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.

There is audiable evidence of explosions on the videos. The is oral evidecne of explosions in testimony. I will get to the lack of evidence and evidence for explosives at a later date.

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.

Recall above you stated that “not a single explosion is heard” now you admit that explosions were reported. Good, i will take that as a subtle retraction of your previous no-explosions-heard position.

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

What evasion i provided the proof you requested that explosions were heard in both testimony and video footage??? It seems you now going back to your false no-explosion-heard postion. Your hipocracy has been noted.

are you suggesting that i must prove that the explosions heard in the video came from the twin tower? well when reporters and witnesses claim explosions were in the twin towers i do not need to prove that explosions in the videos came from the towers. i simply assume that their testimony is true an they did experience an explsion inside the towers.

i said

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.

It does when the so called fact is based on an unproven assumption you expect me and others to take for granted.

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

I think that speaks for itself.

If you cannot read the testimony and listen to the video’s i sent you then there is nothing more i can do.

On a side note. It only demonstrates in spades to me the complete bias in this so called forum of critical thinking. Here we have a clear example of someone who actually believes that no-explosions-were-heard which goes against testimony and video footage and news reports of that day. yet not ONE person in this room corrects him??? However if i make a spelling mistake i will be sure to have a wave of criticism and insults. Bias is noted gentlemen and ladies.

HAS been investigated.

Really, so tell me what was the collapse mechanism in tower 7? was the explosion in the basement investigated? how about the total collapse?

 

[thewholesoul]

I gather from his quoted posts that he does not think that debris from a flaming, disintegrating building can fall down a shaft, and he's focusing on light bulbs and switches. Talk about missing the forest for the trees....

hello grravy.

i clearly stated that disintegrating debris can descend down the elevator shaft.

heres what i think. i think that there is a myrad of possible ignition sources. . i know that you are speculating being an expert on existentialist nothingness. others have suggested light bulbs and switches and yes light bulbs and switches are possible sources of jet fuel ignition according to real experts on this subject.

so yes it could have been the falling debris, the light bulbs, or caused by a thermite reaction as well as a multitude though limited amount of other possible ignition sources.

by limiting the possible ignition of jet fuel to one source only shows your lack of expertise on the issue. admittedly i am no expert either but i understand that a varity of reasons could have been the ignition source. i know that NIST conducted no experiments to prove any of the possible ignition sources. i know that i am speculating when i claim that incendary devices could have been the source of the explosion in the basement.

but all aside its good to be chatting again with you grravy its a real pleasure watching you waste those key strokes on a fellow non-expert like myself.

p.s. you failed to address the points in relation to your disintegrating debris scenario and instead attacked a strawman.

 

[thewholesoul]

What "Hypothesis" do you keep blabbering about, Whole? Yours?
Because if your talking about yours, which one? You have so many of them that no one knows what you are talking about. And personally I don't think you know yourself.

What I don't understand is why everyone here hasn't but you on Ignore for your uneducated replies.


I Am He

you see i would never bother responding to someone like you because your more interested in insults than a real dialogue.

why dont you put me on ignore and i will add you to my list of scalps.

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

i hope that clear things up for you.

as for which one i ascribe to - i would say the later. i am sceptical and a critic of the official hypothesis. if it proven to be true then i will accept it no questions asked. until it is proven i have no reason to believe it s true - at least none that have concinced me yet anyhows.

 

[WildCat]

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

Finally, a truther who has an "alternative hypothesis".

Could you, you know, share that hypothesis with all of us?

 

[Dave Rogers]

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

i hope that clear things up for you.

Could you clear things up a bit more please? This alternative hypothesis: LIHOP or MIHOP? Planes or no planes at the WTC? Plane or no plane at the Pentagon? Plane crash, shootdown or no plane at Shanksville? Thermite, explosives, energy beams from space or no demolition of WTC1 and 2? WTC7 - CD or collateral damage? Were the passengers on board? Were the airphone calls real or fake? Were the planes remote controlled, flown by hijackers working unwittingly for the CIA, or set on autopilot by Mossad agents who then parachuted out of the nose gear door? NORAD - stand down or shoot down? Put options? Fat Osama? Shall I go on?

You see, there isn't an "alternative hypothesis", just a mess of individual fantasies that don't mesh together in any coherent form. If there was a single, coherent, complete alternative hypothesis, it would be a big step forward from where the truth movement is now.

Dave.

 

[SDC]

you see i would never bother responding to someone like you because your more interested in insults than a real dialogue.

why dont you put me on ignore and i will add you to my list of scalps.

there are two main hypothesis.
the official hypothesis
alternative hypothesis

i hope that clear things up for you.

as for which one i ascribe to - i would say the later. i am sceptical and a critic of the official hypothesis. if it proven to be true then i will accept it no questions asked. until it is proven i have no reason to believe it s true - at least none that have concinced me yet anyhows.

Let me join the chorus: please present your "alternative hypothesis." Just an outline will suffice for now. Picking at perceived errors in the "official hypothesis" won't gain you any respect at all. To be taken seriously, you have to provide a narrative -- what you think happened. Again, an outline will be enough.

Your message implies that you regard it as a victory ("my list of scalps") when someone else puts you on ignore. I don't see the logic.

 

[Belz...]

Did i say that acceptance or popularity was the grounds by which to determine whether a hypothesis is proven or not? No.

Why don't you read what I said again:

That it (the official hypothesis) is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven

Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.

Of course it's been tested. Two airliners crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11. They collapsed. There is no rational alternative explanation.

Experimentation and testing is part of the scientific method. Without testing or experimentation a hypothesis will remain unproven.

You have no idea how "the scientific method" operates, obviously, because you say it as though it was a mantra. You took the cheap science class, it seems.

Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.

Again, you ignore what I've said more than once: once the collapse was initiated, we all agree that it could not be stopped because the forces involved were overwhelming.

Repeat to yourself 10 times – “sometimes the majority can be and has been wrong”.

Again, you fail to read my post. Please read MORE SLOWLY. The burden of proof IS yours BECAUSE it is the accepted theory.

Also, just because someone CAN be wrong is no reason to doubt everything he says.

A prime example is global warming. The so called majority of climatologists are claimed to support the global warming theory. However it still has not been proven definitively that is why there are alternative and competing theories out there i.e. carbon dioxide is not responsible for increasing global temperatures.

I see you've got all kinds of woo. Perhaps you'd care to cite a more relevant example.

So yes i agree with you that a large number of professionals agree that the official hypothesis is correct. But without their hypothesis being tested it will remain unproven and its truth will not have been scientifically established.

Unfortunately for you, that YOU don't agree with them doesn't take YOUR burden of proof away.

Not all experts agree.

Irrelevant. All experts will never agree on anything.

there is a growing number in Aefor 911 truth and laymen that happen to disagree and claim that what is observed fits the demolition or explosives hypothesis.

Funny, the number seems to be vanishingly small.

the total collapse of the first three steel framed skyscrappers in history

But not the first time we've seen a total collapse of a steel framed building.

I will move onto explsoives as soon as you can accept the FACT that the official hypothesis has not been proven.

That's a nice cop-out.

7.Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?

They did a computer simulation.

“a full-scale test was not feasible.”

Indeed, it isn't.

Look, you said that not a single explosion is heard. That is simply untrue my firend. I would be crucified in this forum for saying somthing like that. But instead of retracted your false statement you decide to attack me?? I proved my contention that explosions were heard. Below are two true statements. If you have a problem with either true statement then please provide your reasons.

I've asked you several times to link to a video where we DID hear, at least what sounded like, explosions. you have FAILED to do so.

(a)it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony

No, what's a FACT is that they CLAIM to have heard explosions.

I'm not saying they are lying, I'm saying they are most likely wrong.

There is audiable evidence of explosions on the videos.

Still waiting.

Recall above you stated that “not a single explosion is heard” now you admit that explosions were reported. Good, i will take that as a subtle retraction of your previous no-explosions-heard position.

If you can't tell the difference then it's no wonder you believe in such absurd ideas.

Your hipocracy has been noted.

My hypocrisy has been made-up, you mean.

 

[Belz...]

I think that speaks for itself.

If you cannot read the testimony and listen to the video’s i sent you then there is nothing more i can do.

On a side note. It only demonstrates in spades to me the complete bias in this so called forum of critical thinking. Here we have a clear example of someone who actually believes that no-explosions-were-heard which goes against testimony and video footage and news reports of that day. yet not ONE person in this room corrects him??? However if i make a spelling mistake i will be sure to have a wave of criticism and insults. Bias is noted gentlemen and ladies.

Soul, before we continue with this discussion you might want to attend some English classes. You are obviously incapable of understanding simple English, a language that I learned by watching television in the late 80s.

 

[thewholesoul]

you do know what LEL's are dont you?

yes

you are focusing solely on the ignition source when clearly you are forgetting the other two requirements on the fire triangle

yes i am focuing on the ignition because experts who actually conduct experiments on jet fuel list incendary devices as a possible igniton source. an experiment on you tube confirms this aswell see Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

you have to have the correct mixture of fuel and oxygen for ignition of an explosive atmosphere

i agree. the air/fuel ratio is crucial.

you can have as much fuel as you like but if there is not the correct mixture of fuel with oxygen then it will not ignite even with an ignition source, we do not know at what points in the building and at what times this mixture was present when an ignition source was present, any time there was, then you would get a deflagaration and this could have happened a few times

i agree.

but we must assume that the for the official hypothesis to be true the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 levels in both towers despite the fact that the planes impacted at different floors which means that - assuming the fuel was oxygenated when descending down the elevator shaft - that the fuel/air ratio must have been different in B2-3 level of both towers yet the same event occured?

so what is the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel per/sec? what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?

we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources

i agree. and one plausible source in my opinion is an incendary device.

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

i dont agree. we do not need to construct an exact replica. we could construct a scale replica and remember we are not testing the structural integrity of the towers we are testing whether the jet fuel will ignite from possible sources of ignition. the quantity of fuel is a variable that could be measured and adjusted, the fuel/air ratio could be measured and adjusted, the speed at which the jet fuel feel could be measured and adjusted, the angle etc etc the ignition sources could also be prepared and tested.

look if NIST can test how the fireproofing could be removed from the impact of jet plane by firing a shotgun into a wooden box containing a non-representative piece of fireproofing then experiments can me made to determine which ignition, if any, can in mid-air, non-locally cause a delfagration of descending jet-fuel. these are just some ideas.

also EDL - Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech conduct many experiments to determine explosions in aeroplanes. that doesnto mean they fly a plane and plant an ignition in it. they do lab experiments, scale experiments, simulations in an attmept to investiagte and uncover the causes of a plane disaster. this stuff is not impossible.

i work in, and teach about hazardous areas, and electrical systems for use in them, all the time

thats fine, but other experts at the Explosions Dynamics Labratory study and test explosions for their bread and butter.

when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

i think thermite, lazer beams from mars, and bigfoot - sorry only joking -

i think was it an accident or intentional.

 

[thewholesoul]

you do know what LEL's are dont you?

yes

you are focusing solely on the ignition source when clearly you are forgetting the other two requirements on the fire triangle

yes i am focuing on the ignition because experts who actually conduct experiments on jet fuel list incendary devices as a possible igniton source. an experiment on you tube confirms this aswell see Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

you have to have the correct mixture of fuel and oxygen for ignition of an explosive atmosphere

i agree. the air/fuel ratio is crucial.

you can have as much fuel as you like but if there is not the correct mixture of fuel with oxygen then it will not ignite even with an ignition source, we do not know at what points in the building and at what times this mixture was present when an ignition source was present, any time there was, then you would get a deflagaration and this could have happened a few times

i agree.

but we must assume that the for the official hypothesis to be true the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 levels in both towers despite the fact that the planes impacted at different floors which means that - assuming the fuel was oxygenated when descending down the elevator shaft - that the fuel/air ratio must have been different in B2-3 level of both towers yet the same event occured?

so what is the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel per/sec? what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?

we cannot say for definite what caused the ignition but we have a huge list of very plausible sources

i agree. and one plausible source in my opinion is an incendary device.

to test as you wish, you need an exact replica of the towers and everything that happened on that day or you have variables that deflect from what happened that day, it is an impossibility to test it as you wish and say definitively that this is what happened

i dont agree. we do not need to construct an exact replica. we could construct a scale replica and remember we are not testing the structural integrity of the towers we are testing whether the jet fuel will ignite from possible sources of ignition. the quantity of fuel is a variable that could be measured and adjusted, the fuel/air ratio could be measured and adjusted, the speed at which the jet fuel feel could be measured and adjusted, the angle etc etc the ignition sources could also be prepared and tested.

look if NIST can test how the fireproofing could be removed from the impact of jet plane by firing a shotgun into a wooden box containing a non-representative piece of fireproofing then experiments can me made to determine which ignition, if any, can in mid-air, non-locally cause a delfagration of descending jet-fuel. these are just some ideas.

also EDL - Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech conduct many experiments to determine explosions in aeroplanes. that doesnto mean they fly a plane and plant an ignition in it. they do lab experiments, scale experiments, simulations in an attmept to investiagte and uncover the causes of a plane disaster. this stuff is not impossible.

i work in, and teach about hazardous areas, and electrical systems for use in them, all the time

thats fine, but other experts at the Explosions Dynamics Labratory study and test explosions for their bread and butter.

when you see a gas explosion in someones house what do you think is the most likely cause of the ignition?

i think thermite, lazer beams from mars, and bigfoot - sorry only joking -

i think was it an accident or intentional. and i think if it was intentional then every plausible hypothesis should be investigated thoroughly

 

[thewholesoul]

No, they're not.(their not speculating)

oh yes they are.

we are discussing the possible sources of ignition, the probable causes, the most plausable source of ignition. this language could hardly be described as that of certainty and absolutes.

Only you are playing this absurd game.

care to join? i posted several accounts of witness testimony that corroborates william rodriguez's testimony. why dont yo make a comment about that?

It's like speculating on why the planes impacted the exact floors that they did.

hang on you just said above that they are not speculating!! now your saying that its like speculating why the planes hit the exact floor??

besides if we all know the exact floor where the planes hit surely that is the language of certainty not speculation. conversly we do not know for certain the exact source of ignition in relation to the explosion in the basement hence the speculation.

It's moot. It DOESN'T matter. Don't you get it? It has NOTHING to do with anything.

you mean it doesnt matter to you yet you decide to post in the forum that it doesnt matetr to you - how constructive. maybe you should reserve your nihilism for a religious thread in the JREF forum.

it is important to establish the source of igniton for certain - in order to remove the possibility - that the source of ignition could have been an incendary device as seen in the video link i posted previously.

I suggest everyone else move along now and leave you to play this stupid game by yourself.

i suggest you move along and allow us to have a dialogue in peace.