Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[funk de fino]

it looks like i may have to. it seems that the terms might not have been invented for the first time post 911. although NIST does not define what global collapse means thus there may still be an opening if they define it differently from the defintions previously.

however if i were to make a rebuttal - i would argue that 911 exhibited a new phenomena i.e. first stell framed skyscraper to exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity - thus a new phenomena requires a new theory, or hypothesis to explain this phenomena.

but this aspect of our dialogue was about the burden of proof.
i am awaiting your response as to why - total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse - is NOT A CLAIM. a claim i might add had NOT been proven by the scientific method.

i still maintain the positon that the burden of proof rests on those who state claims or new theory's. contolled demolition is not a new theory. and if the burden of proof rests with us - then you should support an OFFICIAL investigation into the CD hypothesis. if i had to choose with was a new theory between the official hypothesis and contolled demolition i would say the former based on the fact that the phenomena which occured on 911 never happened previously to a steel framed skyscraper.

You define gobal collapse then?

Total collapse was ineveitable because the rest of the building could not resist the force of the upper part of the building dropping on it. The calculations are in plenty peer reviewed papers. You must refute them. I do not have to prove them as they have already been proven and reviewed. get it?

It is not a new theory that steel framed buildings collapse due to damage by fire and the effects of gravity no matter what way you try to spin it. Just because these were the largest and they all occured on the same day does not mean this is a new theory.

 

[funk de fino]

Why is it more likely in your opinion?

If we look at it from a point of view of the fuel cascades down the shaft in liquid form, thousands of gallons of it. This is a theoretical model and in no way is supposed to say exactly what happened on the day.

When the fuel reaches the bottom of the shaft it spreads out, pools and starts to evaporate into the local oxygen. Remember the lift shaft are not hermetically sealed because in the report and interviews some people witnessed flames coming out of the lift shafts.

As it is travelling down the shaft the fuel is above the UEL for the available ignition sources and will not ignite. In the bottom as it starts to pool, spread out and find its way into other areas (like your fuel on the road experiment) an ignition source ignites it. Witness on the scene smelled fuel on a lot of levels including the lobby areas.

If we look at it from the view of what happened on that day the variables are too great to say for certain what exactly set it off, how many events and exactly where for each event. Witnesses and reports seem to suggest the flaming fireball travelled down the shaft but there could also have been other events in the basement. As norseman has pointed out there could have been backdraft situations.

Experimentation will make it no clearer for us. If you think so you are in fantasyland.

 

[thewholesoul]

good answer.

and i must say i appreciate your patience.

If we look at it from a point of view of the fuel cascades down the shaft in liquid form, thousands of gallons of it.

When the fuel reaches the bottom of the shaft it spreads out, pools and starts to evaporate into the local oxygen.

so your saying evaporation only occured when the liquid reached and pooled at the base of elevator - not when it travelled down the side walls of the elevator?

Remember the lift shaft are not hermetically sealed because in the report and interviews some people witnessed flames coming out of the lift shafts.

after the explosion in basement

In the bottom as it starts to pool, spread out and find its way into other areas (like your fuel on the road experiment) an ignition source ignites it.

no deflragtion occured on B6-5 despite the presence of multiple and capable ignition sources.

Witness on the scene smelled fuel on a lot of levels including the lobby areas.

the lobby area was above B2-3. Yet B6 was were the fuel started to evapourate (the only place?) according to you. yet mike pecaro B6 smelled kerosene after explosion was heard. philip morelli did not report the smell of kerosene although he was standing beside the freight elevator where the fuel vapor must have past to reach the B2-3 area above.

given that witnesses smelled kerosene on various floors is evidence that fuel evaporated not just in the B6 level as you suggested.

As norseman has pointed out there could have been backdraft situations.

what #post of norseman

 

[thewholesoul]

disgaree all you want but they are not correctly peer reviwed papers.

experts? JONES experts for reviewing papers are who exactly?

because you do not know which experts reviewed his paper does not mean that no experts reviewed his papers.

Scientific community. Give me a list of their reviewers. Now define a peer reviewed scientific paper?

you never heard of blind reviews? that is when the names are not disclosed. that is the normal procedure in science. steven jones does assure us that his work was reviewed by peers with phd's.

You have clamied total collpase is not inevitable. There are many papers out there which are properly peer reviewed that show that this is in fact true. You have to disprove them. You have to show they are wrong. If somone fron the truthers at JONES writes a paper to try and do this then they have to put it out into the scientific community to be peer reviewed not just get some of their mates at the same online site to say its OK.

again you have provided no reason why scholars peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed. you have only managed to express bias.

Do you think exepriments on progressive collaapse have never been carried out? Do you not think there is a knowledge base out there already about progressive collapse?

no, i know experimnets with large or partial scale models and/or compuer models have not been conducted on the total collapse post initial collapse of the twin towers. heres a challenge:

if you can name one test, experiment, and/or computer model that was conducted on the total collapse of the twin towers post initial collaspe - you can produce it right?

Secret controlled demolition, using thermite, on a skyscraper that had been extensively damaged by planes flying into them at approx 500 mph, with a load of fuel causing loss of fireproofing and unfought fires, with no distinct loud demoliton explosions noises, then vidoes subsequently show that the cores stood longer than the rest of the building, is indeed a new theory skip

do you accept the fact that no steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscraper has collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to 911. that this phenomena has predominantly occured due to controlled demolition?

do you accept the fact that eight or ten of the features of the collapses are seen in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.?

Sudden onset – straight down progress – sliced steel – demolition rings – molten steel – pulverization of concrete and other materials/thick dust clouds – almost free fall speed – total collapse – horizontal ejections – sounds produced by explosions

Not a new theory of collpase of steel framed buildings though is it? there is one right outside my window. Steel framed warehouse, caught fire on 22nd december. Contained normal houslehold and office equipment. Steel frame collapsed with only the weight of roofing sheets on top of it.

steel framed skyscraper - yes.

did the example you allude to exhibit any features only seen in controlled demolition?

The steel frame of the windsor tower would have completely collapsed had it not been for the concrete core holding it up..

so the concrete did get pulverized? so the structure didnt totally collapse? how long did the windsor tower burn - 24 hours or something? i fail to see your point of comparison.

Steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire is not a new theory...

demolition of steel framed buildings is not a new theory either.

did the steel frame buildings aforementioned exhibit any features of a contolled demolition as did the buildings on 911?

Good, you are ahead of the game you have admitted a mistake...

i have no problem whatsoever admitting mistakes. i wonder would you have the same attitude?

A new theory then. A CD that does not sound like a CD? What was that about burden of proof? And new theories?...

what about the "stating a claim" element in relation to burden of proof¿?
- total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse -

you admit that is a claim, right?

do you admit that this claim has not been proven by the scientific method?

if you can provide one example of testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling of the total collapse post initial collaspe that is the only way - the only way - you can refute my assertion above.

do you accept that theoretical calculations are not the same thing as actual experimentation?

You want me to speculate on their specualtions? Is that scientific?

no its not scientific but i would like you to sepcualte on individual testimony who claimed to see and hear something akin to explosives used in demolition. do you have a rational explanation?

How long before collapse were these sounds?

get to your point.

Did you go to implosionworld and look at the videos? Did they look and sound like the towers that day? Why do we not see and hear the same things in all the videos that we have all watched thousands of times from that day?

where exactly do i go in implosion world to watch teh videos?

in the testimony of individuals i provided they claimed that they heard and saw explosions like in demolition just before the south collapsed.

so address the testimony. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
testimony also claim that the ground started shaking BEFORE the collapse
fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when ?all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.?

medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: ?I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened.?

Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down,? he said, ?I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, ?we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down."

so we have people who saw flashes, heard explosions, and felt the ground shaking before the towers collapase. what rational explanation/specualtion do you have?

 

[Norseman]

what #post of norseman

This post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3314548#post3314548
Just one page back.

 

[Norseman]

so address the testimony. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
testimony also claim that the ground started shaking BEFORE the collapse
fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when ?all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.?

You do notice that he feels the ground shaking, then he looks up and sees the the tower collapsing. In other words the building was already collapsing when he felt the ground shaking. He felt the vibrations from the upper block impacting and destroying the lower block, these vibrations were transfered through structure down to the ground. Vibrations travel trough steel faster than air, therefor the ground will shake before they can hear the collapse. The same line of reasoning goes for the other witnesses to.

 

[Gravy]

I can't believe people are still responding to this deliberately ignorant person.

 

[funk de fino]

good answer.

and i must say i appreciate your patience.

so your saying evaporation only occured when the liquid reached and pooled at the base of elevator - not when it travelled down the side walls of the elevator?

after the explosion in basement

no deflragtion occured on B6-5 despite the presence of multiple and capable ignition sources.

the lobby area was above B2-3. Yet B6 was were the fuel started to evapourate (the only place?) according to you. yet mike pecaro B6 smelled kerosene after explosion was heard. philip morelli did not report the smell of kerosene although he was standing beside the freight elevator where the fuel vapor must have past to reach the B2-3 area above.

given that witnesses smelled kerosene on various floors is evidence that fuel evaporated not just in the B6 level as you suggested.

what #post of norseman

You missed out a very important part of my post. I think this was deliberate and completely changes the post and your answers to it. I have tried as hard as I can to make you understand UEL/LEL and fire theory but you are consisitently making the same mistakes.

Because of your editing of my post I will not reply to this post. There is no point as it proves you still do not understand what I have been showing you

 

[funk de fino]

because you do not know which experts reviewed his paper does not mean that no experts reviewed his papers.

Who peer reviewed the papers? What experts did they send their papers to so it could be peer reviewed? I'll give you a clue? It was to other members of staff on the journal (website)

you never heard of blind reviews? that is when the names are not disclosed. that is the normal procedure in science. steven jones does assure us that his work was reviewed by peers with phd's.

Now you are making things up to help Jones. Why would you want a blind peer review? What is there to hide? I thought it was a quest for the truth?

PHD's in what? That is the important part of your statement. If you write a paper on the collapse of the towers is it OK for someone with a PHD in sociology to peer review it?

Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.

It is based on the concept that a larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or performance.

Peer review utilizes the independence, and in some cases the anonymity, of the reviewers in order to discourage cronyism (i.e., favoritism shown to relatives and friends) and obtain an unbiased evaluation. Typically, the reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, relatives or friends of the creator or performer of the work, and potential reviewers are required to disclose of any conflicts of interest.

again you have provided no reason why scholars peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed. you have only managed to express bias.

See above. I am not biased. I am not american. Why would I be biased?

no, i know experimnets with large or partial scale models and/or compuer models have not been conducted on the total collapse post initial collapse of the twin towers. heres a challenge:

That is not what I said was it? I said - have tests/experiments been carried out for progressive collapse? I did not mention the towers, now who is showing bias? I meant in general. Do you think there have never been tests carried out for progressive collpase by interested parties before and after 911? There are no studies or experiments? No knowledge base on this phenomena?

I repeat again> that site says the WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 secs. Do you agree with this claim? If so why?

if you can name one test, experiment, and/or computer model that was conducted on the total collapse of the twin towers post initial collaspe - you can produce it right?

See above

do you accept the fact that no steel framed skyscraper in the history of steel framed skyscraper has collapsed due to fire and gravity prior to 911. that this phenomena has predominantly occured due to controlled demolition?

Do you agree that steel frame buildings can collpse due to fire damage and the effects of gravity? If so why would a steel framed skyscraper not be expected to also?

do you accept the fact that eight or ten of the features of the collapses are seen in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.?

No I do not accept it. The Towers look nothing like a CD. I will go through your claims explaining why

Sudden onset – straight down progress – sliced steel – demolition rings – molten steel – pulverization of concrete and other materials/thick dust clouds – almost free fall speed – total collapse – horizontal ejections – sounds produced by explosions

They fell how many minutes after you are claiming witnesses heard bombs in the basement? Is this sudden? One moment you are claiming the explosions were at the point of aircraft impact and then the next you quotemine witness to say it happened just before collapse. Make your mind up.

Straight down but a lot of debri thrown very far from the building. Unlike a CD

Sliced steel was from the clean up process afterward. Show me the same sliced steel from any CD event you care to find.

Demolition rings?? WTF?

No molten steel was found or reported. Now show me molten steel at another CD event.

Thick dust clouds - give you that but do you think that there should have been no dust?

How close to free fall?

Are you trying to say that only buildings that have CD can totally collapse?

The ones in CD are caused by demolition charges and are very loud. In all videos of the collapse I do not hear the sound from these charges.

Show me a real video just before the collpase and during the collapse that has the sounds of these demolition charges.

steel framed skyscraper - yes.

Steel framed buildings being damaged and collapsing due to fire and the effect of gravity is not a new theory. What difference does it being a skyscraper make?

did the example you allude to exhibit any features only seen in controlled demolition?

No, but then again neither did your examples.

so the concrete did get pulverized? so the structure didnt totally collapse? how long did the windsor tower burn - 24 hours or something? i fail to see your point of comparison.

The building was a different design. The core stood but the steel frame around it collapsed. If the building had been the same design as the towers it would gave collapsed.

demolition of steel framed buildings is not a new theory either.

In the manner you are trying to claim it is a new theory. How many CD on steel frame buildings can you show me where the demolition charges go off 50 mins before the collapse? (or during it with silent charges depending on what claim you are making this second)

did the steel frame buildings aforementioned exhibit any features of a contolled demolition as did the buildings on 911?

See above. Denied.

i have no problem whatsoever admitting mistakes. i wonder would you have the same attitude?

Show me one I will admit it. Even a spelling mistake would do, I am man enough to fess up..

what about the "stating a claim" element in relation to burden of proof¿?
- total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse -

you admit that is a claim, right?

do you admit that this claim has not been proven by the scientific method?

This is a claim based on previous knowledge, building drawings and specifications,calculations, laws of physics, observation, witness testimonies, video records and photographic records. It is a claim verified by many scientists and engineers worldwide. You have a few kooks on a website oublishing woo papers without subjecting thgem to peer review in the correct manner who diagree. I know who I would side with on this one (from a critical thinking point of view of course).

There is no need for experimentation on a scale you would like and it is unfeasible anyway. You are more than welcome to try and raise the money to get someone to try for you.

if you can provide one example of testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling of the total collapse post initial collaspe that is the only way - the only way - you can refute my assertion above.

I refute it by saying the experimentation is not needed.

do you accept that theoretical calculations are not the same thing as actual experimentation?

Yes. Does this mean computer models are no longer vaild then? that is what computer do. They carry out calculations using binary.

no its not scientific but i would like you to sepcualte on individual testimony who claimed to see and hear something akin to explosives used in demolition. do you have a rational explanation?

see norsemans explanation of quote 1, thats about the jist of it

get to your point.

You would only miss it

where exactly do i go in implosion world to watch teh videos?

I already showed you where. Do I really need to point it out again. Can you not even search one site for a page of videos? Great researcher you are eh?

in the testimony of individuals i provided they claimed that they heard and saw explosions like in demolition just before the south collapsed.

Reread their testimonies and see how this contradicts some of your other claims

so address the testimony. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
testimony also claim that the ground started shaking BEFORE the collapse
fire patrolman Paul Curran. He was standing near it, he said, when ?all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. . . . The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.?

medical technician Lonnie Penn, who said that just before the collapse of the south tower: ?I felt the ground shake, I turned around and ran for my life. I made it as far as the Financial Center when the collapse happened.?

Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down,? he said, ?I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, ?we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down."

Once again cherry picked quotes from a truth site that do not say what you think they say.

so we have people who saw flashes, heard explosions, and felt the ground shaking before the towers collapase. what rational explanation/specualtion do you have?

Show me the flashes described on any video of the towers?
Explosions do not mean bombs
They feel the ground shake, they look up the towers are on their way down. They feel it before they see it. Not too difficult to understand is it?

 

[Belz...]

Still waiting, soul.

 

[thewholesoul]

This is completely wrong thewholesoul. NIST does not agree with you.

my conclusion was correct. however the premises upon which that conlusion was reached - is apparently wrong.

i argued that it is simply impossible that jet fuel could have travelled all the way down to B2-3 without deflagrating into a fireball given all the ignition sources that were present and capable. I stand by that conclusion. But it must be abandoned because the main premise was wrong.

My argument was based on the false premise that fireballs had not traveled down the elevator shaft prior to B2-3. i received this false premise in a response from non other than my pal Gravy.

thewholesoul, you seem to be under the impression that fireballs traveled down the elevator shafts from the impact zones. None of us make that claim, nor does NIST or anyone else I've seen besides truthers. Fuel poured down the shafts. It could have ignited and deflagrated at any point: as clearly it did at various levels. If David is describing the same explosion as Rodriguez is, then it likely was below him. And remember, the 50 elevator came to a halt below the B1 level.

Is this clear?

After reading your previous posts elsewhere and after reading the relevant pages on the NISTNCSTAR – i now know that fireballs were reported by numerous witnesses shooting out of the elevator shaft in floors not so far away from the imapct zone and progressing downwards.

Here is a relevant quote i found -

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.

You say in a post of yours that

The burning jet fuel cascading/raining down the elevator shafts of car number 6,7 and 50 would consume all available oxygen in the shaft on its way down. Behind the burning front of the fireball, in the shafts

so there was a fireball descending down the elevator shaft from the imapct zone.

Ok gravy although you take pleasure from making snide and insulting comments at myself i want to know if you are going to retract that false statement you posted to me

thewholesoul, you seem to be under the impression that fireballs traveled down the elevator shafts from the impact zones. None of us make that claim, nor does NIST or anyone else I've seen besides truthers

It seems my initial impression was right after all and is supported by NIST.

I can only conclude by your factually incorrect an false statement that you are either ignorant of the NIST report, which i seriously doubt. Thus you must be lying because you knew that fireballs were stated by NIST to have travelled down the elevator shaft.

now you know i have no problem retracting false statments – i did it openly in the forum and even sent you a private mail. Are you going to retract your lie? are you going to take the path of a rational adult?

 

[thewholesoul]

This is completely wrong thewholesoul. NIST does not agree with you. You should either admit that you were wrong, or if that is to hard on you, you should just leave this thread quietly.

As explained my conclusion was correct but unfortunately it rested on a false premise.

I have no problem admitting when i am wrong – i have doen so several times before – and most likely will do again at some point in time.

I have no intention of quietly leaving this thread – i’m going out in a hail of bullets!!

 

[thewholesoul]

Hey norseman i would like to a pay a brief compliment to your style of argumentation. Its among the highest quality i have seen on the forum to date. Well sourced, intelligent and straight to the point.

Anyways on with my post

After doing a bit of research the last days, here are some thoughts on why the jet fuel fireballs on sublevel B4 and in the lobby of WTC 1 could be so destructive.

(a)the “explosion” was somewhere below B1 and above B4 – this is where the “alleged” fuel deflagration occured and requires explanation.

(b)Whatever expoded in B2-3 is obviously responsible for the subsequent fireball witnessed by people in B4 and B1.

The keyword is backdraft. The burning jet fuel cascading/raining down the elevator shafts of car number 6,7 and 50 would consume all available oxygen in the shaft on its way down. Behind the burning front of the fireball, in the shafts, there would follow a cloud of expanding hot gasses including evaporated jet fuel, CO and likely pyrolyzed jet fuel, all lacking oxygen to combust.

(a) the explosion in B2-3 happened before car 50 reached its final destination. That means that the jet fuel must have past the falling elevator. The elevator is not airtight so i assume descending jet fuel or vapour could have accessed the elevator. However neither Arturo Griffith or Marlene Cruz reported seeing or smelling jet fuel. When they were rescued there was no report of seeing or smelling jet fuel in, on, or near the elevator or elevator shaft..

(b) Giambanco heard an explosion first. Later he entered an elevator (not sure which). he did not describe seeing or smelling jet fuel. If the jet fuel cascaded down the elevator shaft – it must have – past the elevator to cause the explosion in B2-3. if it had past the elevator that Giambanco entered we would expect to see jet fuel dripping past the open door. He described no such thing.

(c) if the descending jet fuel was headed by a “buring fireball” that shot out the shafts below then this claim is refuted by Felipe Davids testimony.

The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot

Felipe David was standing beside the freight elevator shaft when FIRST he heard an explosion below then LATER he was burned. In order for your claim to be true the fireball had to pass David cause the explosion he heard below and then shot out of the elevator shaft he was standing beside. This is not possible.

(d) because we know the explosion occured in B2-3 before the freight car arrived at its final destination that means the “burning fireball” had to pass the freight car in order to cause the explosion. if the “burning fireball” past the car 50 followed by the expanding hot gases i would expect the occupants of the elevator to report something about heat, fire, smell of gas, jet fuel etc. They did not.

(e) if the fireball shot out of lobby and B4 shaft – i would expect that it shoot out of every elevator door between the lobby and B4. no fireball shot out of Giambanco’s shaft on B1.

When the fireball shot out of the shafts at the bottom, all the unburned gasses mixed with fresh air and rapidly deflagrated, causing the overpressure that blew out walls and windows.

(a) the “explosion” occured somewhere between the lobby and B4 – this is where you must explain the deflagration.

(b) your explanation is inconsistent with testinomy. In the lobby.
“On the ground level, Michael DeVito was just entering the north tower lobby. He was late for his job on the 77th floor. As he walked into the lobby, he felt a huge explosion. A massive blast of air struck him. He guessed it was a suitcase bomb, but apparently it was air from the plane crash shooting down the elevator shafts. Black smoke filled the lobby.”
Source: Dorschner, John. "Heroics reflect an enduring spirit", Charlotte Observer / Knight Ridder, September 16, 2001

What produced the massive blast of air? we know that numerous witnesses heard an explosion below in B2-3. for this reason i am assuming that Devito is talking about the same explosion. we know that the result of this explosion in B2-3 felipe david on B1 received burns. Giambanco also on B1 reports “an incredible force of wind” presumably resulting from the same explosion. if the damage in the lobby was caused by a descending fireball and oxygen starved fuel vapour then Michael Devito would have reported the “air stricking him first” and then the “huge explosion”. because he did not – we know that the explosion in the basement produced the air stricking him.

(c) if deflagration occured in the lobby then how could it occur in B4? Two deflagrations one in the lobby and one in B4 yet felipe david did not hear two explosions. He did not hear an explosion above. He heard an explosion below and was later burnt.

Normally backdraft occurs in fires when fresh air suddenly enters the confined space of an oxygen starved fire. The principle would be the same for an oxygen starved fireball that shoots in to a room filled with fresh air.

(a)but where did the oxygen starved burning fire ball get the energy to burst or shot through an elevator door? It would have needed to explode first in order to burst down a door. But in order to deflagrate it needed to burst down the door to allow the jet vapour to mix with air.

(b)If the buring fireball can shot through any door and deflagrate then unless the elevator doors are different on each floor one would expect that the fireball would shot through every elevator shaft door from the impact zone with the consequent deflagration. But this did not happen.

(c)If the fireball has enough energy to take a horizontal turn and shoot threw and burst down an elevator door why was the elevator car 50 not damaged or the occupants not burnt from the same fireball which must have past them to cause the explosion in B2-3?

 

[thewholesoul]

Hey funk de fino – there is no question that you are an intelligent man

but being human you also make mistakes as i will demonstrate below.

Now i had been arguing on numerous occassions that it is not possible that the jet fuel could descend down the elevator shaft without igniting into a fireball before it reached the basement.

I said

All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and exploding into a fireball beforehand.

You replied

You are forgetting the LEL and UEL again. You have the three things for the fire remember. If we have all the correct ignition sources in the shaft. What could be missing from the equation?

I said .

explain to me how the flammable jet fuel travelled down 90+floors without igniting into a fireball.

You said

See above for the comment about correct ratio of fuel to oxygen for why it did not ignite. If you have a small flame burning and you take a bucket of petrol and dump the petrol on the flame the flame will be extinguished because you have added too much fuel to the triangle.

you said

The thousands of gallons of jet fuel cascading down the shaft just after impact does not mean you have this correct atmosphere present all the way down the shaft. See the bucket of petrol experiments above.

I said imagine i was a student in your classroom

I ask you, excuse me sir, but how did the jet fuel not ignite into a fireball before it reached B2-3 in both towers?

you said

Sorry pal, you are not bright enough to be one of my students but i will play your game anyway. You will recieve an F though

you said

I would tell you that there was not necessarily and explosive atmosphere travelling down the shaft at that point. I would carry out the bucket of petrol experiment (I would make you pay as petrol is very expensive here) and try again to reiterate the relationship between the LEL, UEL and the fire triangle

you said

If you had already asked it before and continued to show a complete and utter failure to show that you could understand basic theories like these, then yes,I would throw you out and inform your supervisor

After reading norseman’s post citing the NCSTAR report on the descending fireball you moved into damage control

If we look at it from a point of view of the fuel cascades down the shaft in liquid form, thousands of gallons of it. This is a theoretical model and in no way is supposed to say exactly what happened on the day.

Then you reiterate your position

As it is travelling down the shaft the fuel is above the UEL for the available ignition sources and will not ignite.

Then you contradict your entire position

Witnesses and reports seem to suggest the flaming fireball travelled down the shaft.

Obviously you were wrong and i was right. You argued against me basically claiming that it is possible that the jet fuel could have traveled down the elevator shaft without igniting into a fireball before it reached the B2-3.

Your position was contrary to NIST -

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)

So funk – are you going to remain true to your words

Show me one (a mistake, and) I will admit it. Even a spelling mistake would do, I am man enough to fess up..

Can i re-enter your classroom after being unjustly thrown out?

 

[funk de fino]

TWS

Why did you post my statement about it being theoretical theories I was trying to teach you this time but not when you quoted it before?

I am not in any way trying to say exactly what happened that day (and I have stated this). You were saying that we needed scale models and experimentation to find ignition sources etc and I was using theory to try to show you why this was not needed.

I am saying that in this case there were far more variables on the day than just ignition sources and their locations. You are the guy who questioned whether switches could be a source. I was also trying to show you the relationship between the ignition source and the explosive atmosphere to further show that we would not need experimentation as it would be nigh on impossible to find exactly what happened that day.

Do you understand that just because you have fuel/oxygen and heat that you will not always have a fire?

Do you understand that you need all three to have a fire?

Do you understand that all three have to be in the corect condition for fire?

Rememeber this post?

one would expect that if the debris was flaming it would have ignited the jet fuel in the elevator before reaching the basement. i would love to an experiment which could demonstrate how this could possibly have happened.
the spark hypothesis

first question is what caused the spark or sparks?
second, assuming the emergency brakes of the freight elevator produced sparks how come that did not ignite the jet fuel?
third, how come jet fuel ignited twice in both towers at the same b2-3 location?
so what caused the spark in the elevator? and once we agree on what could have caused the spark an experiment is needed in order to prove that a spark could ignite the falling jet fuel.

This one

Obviously you were wrong and i was right. You argued against me basically claiming that it is possible that the jet fuel could have traveled down the elevator shaft without igniting into a fireball before it reached the B2-3.

I note you missed this one

Now, I do not claim to know the exact specifics of what happened that day as far as the explosions, fireballs etc, what I am trying to show you is that there are numerous explanations for what happened and none of them are out of the oridinary or new theories or miraculous happenings. I am trying to show you that you do not understand basic theories which is why you are struggling here and unable to understand the things that happened on that day.

I was giving you theoretical models based on all possible variables. I said it was possible and tried to explain the theory why? You have flip flopped between both claims and I was trying to show the variables in favour of both. You aksed me for answers and I tried to answer them using theory. Now you are quotemining me to try to make it look as if I am contradicting myself. Very poor show pal.

I was trying to explain all the variables and was not trying to say what actually happened. I was giving you experiments to prove theories. The fact that you actually cannot see this means you now get a F- and still thrown off. Only this time your supervisor is advised to fire you because you are incapable of reaching job standard.

Continue in this dishonest vein and I will respond no further but if you want more genuine questions answered on this topic feel free to ask away.

Prior to that you may be better to go back to look at Gravy's post # 1005 and give me some answers on this testimony? Count up those numbers and then tell me how many witness you have that actually seen bombs, thermite or explosions with blast effects. Then explain that if we have fuel, air and heat, and we have correct ratio explosive atmosphere, exactly why we need the bombs or thermite. If the bombs or thermite was used to create damage in the basement levels then why did the cores stand longer than the rest of the building on collapse and why did the buildings take so long to collapse after the basement event?

 

[Belz...]

Taking your time, soul ?

How about those videos I reviewed ?

 

[thewholesoul]

Still waiting, soul.

sorry about delay in response Belz

you said

Now, as to the videos.

The first three show footage from the same camera and the same angle. The "explosion" they describe in the first two and the sounds we hear prior to collapse in the third cannot be conclusively identified as explosion sounds. My opinion is that they are far too sudden to represent something that happens that far away. It's most likely wind. You DO know what wind does to mikes, don't you ?

You know Belz i think i have to agree with you on this one.

We have videos far away and we hear several big explosions – yet with videos closer to the actual collapse we not hear the same amount of explosions or the same sound from the explosions. So which videos are correct – the ones far away? or the ones closer to the collaspe? Obviously the latter. thus the sound in the videos is most likely wind or someone farting!!

however i would appreciate if you could explain the apparant correlation between the acoustic recording and the collpasing tower? that is kinda curious. anyways

Here are some links to three more explosions recorded from near cameras.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=7LPbXaZAKNI&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=VhiEAn6RCFA&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=iroOdvjOK8k&feature=related

whats your view on these?

 

[funk de fino]

Here are some links to three more explosions recorded from near cameras.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=7LPbXaZAKNI&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=VhiEAn6RCFA&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=iroOdvjOK8k&feature=related

whats your view on these?

1. Since when do demolition charges rumble on like the first one? It starts at 2 secs and continues to rumble till the end of the video?

2. Second one, the reporter says, "hours after the attacks many smaller explosions rumbled through dpowntown" when was this video filmed? Hours later? Not within the time it took for the towers to fall?

3. Fake explosion noise on video. It has been discussed to the death on this forum already quite recently

Whats your view on them?