Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[gumboot]

It's worth pointing out:

1. The official account does not require a fireball to begin at the impact floors and descend to the basement - it only requires jet fuel to descend to the basement, and once there aerosol and ignite. The aerosol of jet fuel can occur at any time, and at multiple times, in multiple locations. This is in contrast to a single fireball.

2. A fuel air explosion as would occur in the scenario above is capable of producing far more damaging over pressure than high explosives. Although high explosives have a higher originating overpressure, this dissipates rapidly thus localising the effects of the blast both in time and space. In contrast a fuel air explosion can produce overpressure that sustains high pressure levels for a much longer period, causing more extensive damage at a greater distance from the origin of the explosion. In addition, a fuel air explosion will produce much more significant heat damage than a high explosive detonation.

3. High explosives are entirely incapable of producing the sort of wounds described by multiple people as being inflicted on Felipe David when engulfed in an explosion that came from the main service elevator shaft. The wounds described - skin hanging off - are specifically consistent with a hydrocarbon fuel explosion. The same wounds were witnessed on victims at the Pentagon and in other parts of the WTC.

In simple terms, had Felipe David experienced a high explosive detonation he would have been ripped apart. His injuries are a result of heat damage and not detonation damage.

 

[thewholesoul]

So for the third time: What evidence do you have that a phenomenon you are labeling "the magic fireball" struck the basement levels before the actual fireball did?

you still dont even understand my simple simple argument.

rodriguez, morelli, sanchez, david, cruz, griffith, etc etc etc etc report a frecking EXPLOSION in the basement. there is your frecking EVIDENCE.

now we have to EXPLAIN that EXPLOSION

we have two options

(a) the official theory claims that the explosion was a fireball
(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.

come on man this is basic stuff...i shouldnt have to be explaining myself over and over again.

 

[Drs_Res]

Seems to me that the "explosions" in the basement would have been the shock wave from the plane impact traveling through the structure and to the foundation of the building.

You would hear the impact from above later. The fireball would also occur later as well.

The shock from the impact could definitely do damage once it hit the footings in the bedrock.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[gumboot]

you still dont even understand my simple simple argument.

rodriguez, morelli, sanchez, david, cruz, griffith, etc etc etc etc report a frecking EXPLOSION in the basement. there is your frecking EVIDENCE.

now we have to EXPLAIN that EXPLOSION

we have two options

(a) the official theory claims that the explosion was a fireball
(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.

come on man this is basic stuff...i shouldnt have to be explaining myself over and over again.

This is incorrect. Felipe David was burned by a fireball originating from an elevator shaft in the basement at the time that those in the office with Rodriguez reportedly heard an explosion. In fact their evidence that an explosion had occured was the sight of David appearing at the office with skin hanging off his arms, shouting about an explosion.

 

[DC]

when talking about fireballs in elevator shafts, pls also mention the elevatorshaft number so we can see if it was possible. cause most elevator shafts did not run from sublevels or basement till top or impact area.

 

[johnny karate]

you still dont even understand my simple simple argument.

rodriguez, morelli, sanchez, david, cruz, griffith, etc etc etc etc report a frecking EXPLOSION in the basement. there is your frecking EVIDENCE.

now we have to EXPLAIN that EXPLOSION

we have two options

(a) the official theory claims that the explosion was a fireball
(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.

come on man this is basic stuff...i shouldnt have to be explaining myself over and over again.

Yes, I understand what you are claiming.

What I'm asking you for is evidence. And this makes the fourth time I've had to do it.

Please cite your claims.

 

[thewholesoul]

EVIDENCE for the karate kid

Yes, I understand what you are claiming.

What I'm asking you for is evidence. And this makes the fourth time I've had to do it.

Please cite your claims.

oh i see it, DOZENS of testimony doesnt count as EVIDENCE in your book when it contradicts you religious convictions!

im am only posting this once and am not entering a debate because i wish to stick on the theme of THIS thread but the following is EVIDENCE that explosives were used to bring down wtc 1 2 and 7

1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse


2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up

3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero


4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust

5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample

6) the infamous "meteorite"

7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this

8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires

despite all this HARD evidence NIST denies the existence of molten steel - yet another smoking gun of 911

peace

 

[DGM]

oh i see it, DOZENS of testimony doesnt count as EVIDENCE in your book when it contradicts you religious convictions!

im am only posting this once and am not entering a debate because i wish to stick on the theme of THIS thread but the following is EVIDENCE that explosives were used to bring down wtc 1 2 and 7

1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse


2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up

3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero


4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust

5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample

6) the infamous "meteorite"

7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this

8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires

despite all this HARD evidence NIST denies the existence of molten steel - yet another smoking gun of 911

peace

Please show a demolition that exhibited these traits. Explain how your "theory" could produce these results.

 

[Dave Rogers]

im am only posting this once and am not entering a debate because i wish to stick on the theme of THIS thread but the following is EVIDENCE that explosives were used to bring down wtc 1 2 and 7

Note to any moderator who may be reading: Is this far enough off topic to warrant a thread split? If so, that may be a good idea at this point.

The problem with your evidence for explosives is this: in order for something to be evidence for explosives, it needs at least to be consistent with the use of explosives. Let's look at your eight points in turn.

1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse

Neither can this be explained by explosives, which release energy over a small fraction of a second; nor can it be explained by therm*te, which releases energy over seconds to minutes. The only possible explanation for these high temperatures weeks after the collapse is a thermal energy source that releases energy over a timescale of many weeks, and the only candidate with these properties so far suggested is an underground fire fuelled by the building contents. Therefore, this is not evidence either for explosives or therm*te.

2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up

Same argument as above. High temperatures weeks after the event can't be from explosives or thermite. Again, not evidence for explosives.

3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero

Same again. Also, "dozens" is a gross exaggeration; there are, as far as I know, two accounts, one of which is journalistic hyperbole and the other of which is a statement attributed by Christopher Bollyn to Mark Louiseaux, who denies having made it.

4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust

Thermate, as everyone has pointed out ad nauseam, is not an explosive. All the chemicals found in the dust are expected components of the dust from the collapse of a large building. Other chemicals characteristic of thermate, for example barium, were not found.

5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample

Still being debated; so far several other possible origins have been identified. In particular it appears to resemble fly ash. This is closer to being worth considering as a piece of evidence than anything else the truth movement has produced; however, as one piece of evidence standing alone it is a long way from even arousing suspicion.

6) the infamous "meteorite"

You'll have to explain why a large piece of debris made up primarily of concrete from three or four floor slabs having been compressed together is evidence of explosives or incendiaries. Be sure to explain the survival of pieces of paper on its surface in the context of temperatures in excess of 1000ºC.

7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this

Metallurgical examination of this intergranular melting has long since established that it is, in fact, intergranular melting, due to long term exposure of steel to a high temperature, corrosive atmosphere. Again, the long timescale of the exposure rules out explosives or thermate as a cause.

8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires

This is the same phenomenon as 7).

Your eight pieces of evidence therefore comprise five that rule out explosives or therm*te as their cause, one based on sketchy anecdotal evidence that in any case rules out explosives or therm*te as a cause, and two that can be trivially explained by other causes. Overall, there is really nothing warranting any further consideration.

Dave

 

[cloudshipsrule]

(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.

You do realize that the buildings collapsed from the TOP down, right? What friggin' purpose did these planted, basement explosives serve but to create fodder for conspiratoids?

Why not give up this hobby for something more useful, like building ships in a bottle or simply drinking beer on your mom's couch in front of the boob tube?

 

[thewholesoul]

Yes, I understand what you are claiming.

What I'm asking you for is evidence. And this makes the fourth time I've had to do it.

Please cite your claims.

hey karate kid,

i thought of a better way for you to understand why you are acting absurd.

what EVIDENCE dio you have that a fireball past down shaft 50?
you wll say the testimony from arturo griffth

then i say with those very same eyeballs he saw thick smoke and his elevator car door damaged, he heard an explosion all BEFORE he saw that fireball...

can you not see how ridiculous you sound "for the fouth time" as if i am trying to duck a question.

give me a break

 

[cloudshipsrule]

1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse


2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up

3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero


4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust

5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample

6) the infamous "meteorite"

7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this

8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires

despite all this HARD evidence NIST denies the existence of molten steel - yet another smoking gun of 911

Thankfully you're not a judge, as this is circumstantial evidence, not conclusively hard.
My 'passenger-jet-flying-into-said-buildings' evidence trumps all of your evidence, which has already, repeatedly been shot down.

 

[johnny karate]

oh i see it, DOZENS of testimony doesnt count as EVIDENCE in your book when it contradicts you religious convictions!

I never said that. What I've asked multiple times is for you to actually provide evidence to support your claims. You keep referring to this testimony as evidence. Now all you have to do is provide it.

what EVIDENCE dio you have that a fireball past down shaft 50? you wll say the testimony from arturo griffth

And I both directly quoted and linked the testimony to which I referred. You seem unwilling to do this in support of your own argument.

If testimony exists to support your "magic fireball" theory, please provide quotes and links to said testimony.

 

[thewholesoul]

to Norseman

the following is a quote from Marlene Cruz:

...all of a sudden I heard that explosion and the doors blew and the elevator dropped and there was smoke and fire, water, oil all over the place, debris, concrete, you name it just fell on top of us...

the following is from Norseman

I am quiet certain that she is just lumping together everything that happened inside that elevator in no particular order, as the things pops up in her mind. So I would be very careful with how I would interpret the things she says in relation to the sequence of events.

What we can be sure about is that the cables to their elevator car was cut by Flight 11 when it crashed into the building. That was when their car started to drop. The car was stopped by the emergency brakes down in the basement. As the elevator came to a halt all the debris that had entered their elevator shaft up in the impact zone would catch up with them. Pieces of debris falling more than 300 meters from the impact zone would hit their elevator car with a tremendous force that easily explains ALL the explosions and the damage to the elevator car mentioned by Arturo Griffith. The debris would use less than 10 seconds from the impact zone. While the fuel would use considerably more time, for reasons I explained in my opening post in this thread.

1.Why are you “quiet certain”? What are your reasons in support of this baseless assumption?

2.The actual reason you want to ignore the sequence of events is solely to establish your predetermined goal. Not very objective.

3.The sequence of events in Cruz’s testimony is roughly as follows: explosion – car fell – smoke – debris – (we know from Griffths testimony that seconds after they pulled her from the car a fireball was seen descending the shaft). The sequence of events in Griffith’s testimony is as follows: explosion – car fell – debris – smoke – fireball.

4.In both cases they witness smoke BEFORE the fireball arrived. Smoke cannot travel down an elevator shaft quicker than jet fuel or a fireball? You’ve just been debunked. Unless that is they were BOTH mistaken in their sequence of events. if you choose to travel down this path I will use the testimony from Felipe David and Philip Morelli to further support my argument.

5.Dispite the fact that both Griffith and Cruz make a clear distinction between “explosions” and falling “debris”, it is your contention that the falling debris “easily explains ALL the explosions and damage to the elevator car”

6.Really? Falling debris explains the thick white smoke Griffith describes BEFORE the fireball arrived? Quote: “The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him.” http://web.archive.org/web/20021101235538/http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/54

Since when can falling concrete produce thick white smoke? Falling concrete will not turn into dust from hitting off an elevator shaft wall or impacting the roof of an elevator car. So if the fireball or the debris didnt cause the smoke then reason demands we seek a new explanation!!

7.As for damage to the elevator door. Cruz says it was blown upwards, and Griffith says it was blown inwards. Either way debris falling from above could not explain this damage. I think we can safely rule out falling debris causing the door to be blown upwards according to Cruz’s account. As for Griffith’s account, debris would need to be small enough to pass down the gap between the elevator door and shaft walls, then it must take a horizontal turn to impact the elevator door both defying common sense and gravity.

8.So no Norseman, the falling debris does not “easily” describe the impossible.

 

[thewholesoul]

Norseman You Need A New Explanation

NORSEMAN

Q: How did the magic fireball damage multiple floors in sub basement level without being detected or destroying car 50 and its occupants?

A: The main source of the fireball in WTC 1 lobby and on B-4, came from shafts 6 and 7

I was pleased to read your post Norseman as you have clearly abondoned the official theory in respect to a magic fireball descending the freight elevator shaft. The magic fireball, according to your new modified position, has moved over to the express elevator shaft 6 and 7. Once I debunk this new modified position, and I will, reason demands that you seek an alternative explanation.

There are definite strengths to your modified theory:

Firstly, it avoids the problem of facing contradictory testimony since elevator car 6 and 7 were inoperable that day thus no passengers were inside these elevators. Nist state “elevator 6 and 7 were out of service for moderisation” (NCSTAR 1 – 8, p43).

Secondly, damage to the elevator doorways and elevator cars of 6 and 7 is documented in (a) testimony from Dave Bobbitt “the doors of elevator number 6 and 7 (in the lobby) had been blown out” and (b) from NIST NCSTAR 1-8 p43 “the doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft and the elevators cars were burnt.” Such references do seem to support the offical story.

Thirdly, I agree with your claim that the overpressure from a fireball would be greater in the express elevator shaft than in the freight elevator shaft. You provide two reasons in support of this claim (1) the express elevator shaft was more narrow and (2) the express elevator shaft had less doorways and because it had less doorways less fuel could escape if a doorway was blown out by overpressure.

So to be clear: you’re arguing that a fireball from the impact zone decended 90+ floors blowing out elevator doors down the express elevator shaft and eventually causing structural damage from the lobby to basement level 5.

A major problem for your new modified theory is revealed by the following quote:
(NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p32 PDF) “We have two elevators serving only particular floors, beginning from basement level 1, Car 6 and 7. Though their lowest elevator opening was in basement level 1, their shafts went as deep as basement level 4”. This means that, unlike the fireball descending the freight elevator shaft, the fireball descending the express elevator shaft had NO ACCESS to basement levels which it allegedly damages!

Consequently the fireball had to blast through the shaft walls and pit before it could enter and inflict damage to the basement levels. Now assuming the fireball will decrease in energy over time and distance from the impact zone and assuming that the fireball did in fact blast down the shaft walls and pit in the basement levels then we are expected to believe that a weaker fireball in the basment levels can blast through shaft walls whereas the stronger fireball previously descending the elevator shaft could not? It makes no sense.

It stands to reason, that if the fireball really did have enough strength to blast down shaft walls it would have done so long before it reached the basement. Now if you can accept that blasting down doorways allows jet fuel to escape then it follows that when blasting down shaft walls a similar loss would occur. Thus if a fireball actually did have the strenght to blast down shaft walls then a fireball would never actually reach the basement since naturally all the fuel would be expended in blasting down the shaft walls. However because we know a fireball did reach the basement (Griffith’s testimony) we know that fireballs cannot blast through shaft walls.

Next major problem. If you watch carefully all the below examples of deflagration, FAE’s, and backdrafts you should notice that they all share one thing in common and that is they ALL travel through the path of least resistance with no exception. So here is a list to watch:

1.http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...33&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
2.http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...33&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
3. http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
4. POST#46 in the thread has a nice link
5. video of the plane impact into tower one and two
6. videos of any FAE in a movie

I challenge any debunker to produce just one video of a FAE, deflagration, or backdraft that travels through the path of most resistence. Until a single video, experiment or study is produced to that effect I will assume that the natural behaviour of ALL fireballs is to travel through the path of least resistence and anyone that claims otherwise is simply talking rubbish.

Now returning to our express elevator shaft 6 and 7. (a) the elevator shaft itself is the path of least resistence (b) The doorways are the path of more resistence, (c) the shaft walls were the path of even more resistence, and (d) the shaft pit was the path of most resistence. So in order to turn several basment walls into rubble it had to blast down the shaft walls at B 2. To cause a cave-in on the PATH platform the fireball had to travel through the path of most resistence, take a horizontal turn and then blast through three or so walls. When you can actually visualize this you can understand just how “magic” this fireball must have been: http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5118/wtcbasementska1284cutke7.jpg

But not only are we expected to believe that this fireball defies how ALL natural fireballs should behave we are expected to believe that it can cause ALL this structural damage (i.e. blasting through shaft walls, pits, turning walls into rubble etc) yet it only “burns” the elevtor cars 6 and 7 that were right in its path!! Wow the makes sense.

Next major problem is testimony, I mean if you are correct and the fireball that damaged the basment levels originated from the express elevator shaft then we would expect to hear testimony of people in the basement describing the moment when the fireball blast down the shaft walls to enter. Unfortunately for you, I was unable to locate any testimony that could support your theory and I seriously doubt that you can either. In B-4, for instance, all testimony (e.g. Samchez, Morelli, etc) points to a fireball coming down the freight elevator shaft and not the express elevator shaft. Frankly it is beyond belief that a fireball could blast through the shaft pit in B-4 yet manage not to blast down the shaft walls at B-4 where of course it would have been witnessed by several indiciuals.

Finally, beacuse the fireball was descending from the imapct zone and towards the basment levels one would expect that the doorway opening in the lobby would be the first to be blown out before the fireball reached the basment levels. However according to ALL testimony on the B-1 (rodriguez etc) level the first explosion is heard coming from BELOW.

So in conclusion: if we have eliminated the possibility of the basement damaged being caused by a fireball down the freight elevator shaft, and we can eliminate the possibility of the basment damage being caused by a fireball down the express elevator shaft then the official story has no explanation for the explosion that was heard from BELOW william rodriguez and others. because the official story can not provide a possible explanation it must be rejected.


so in summary if you care to offer a rejoinder

i argue that the fireball down the express elevator shaft as a cause of structural damage to multiple basement floors is (a) physically impossible and (b) inconsistent with all relevant testimony.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

1. The official account does not require a fireball to begin at the impact floors and descend to the basement - it only requires jet fuel to descend to the basement, and once there aerosol and ignite. The aerosol of jet fuel can occur at any time, and at multiple times, in multiple locations. This is in contrast to a single fireball.

1. 9/11 Commission Report, P. 285 “A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground.”

2.The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft (Basement level of WTC 1). (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)

3.From NIST NCSTAR 1 Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers 2.4 “some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement.”

4.from popular mechanics: “a three year study into the collapse of the towers found that airplance debris sliced through utility shafts in both towers’ cores, creating conduits for burning jet fuel and fiery destruction throughout the buildings”

5.from norseman: “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”

it seems absolutely clear to me that your drip drop dripple hypothesis IS NOT what NIST, the 911 commission, Popular Mechanics, or fellow debunkers are defending. all of the above cite a fireball or at the very least IGNITED and BURNING jet fuel.

you have ABANDONED the official story.

even if you have not the intellectual honesty to accept this fact i am sure many others reading will. in any case i will DEBUNK your drip drop dripple theory in an upcoming post.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Gumboot debunked, pawned, owned, schooled etc

Below I will debunk Gumboot using testimony and a little common sense.

No 1 Testimony Felipe David was standing in front of the main freight shaft on sub level 1

“That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned.”

http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

Q: what caused the explosion?

A1 Offical Explanation: a fireball fell 90+ floors and burnt David

A2 Unoffical JREF Explanation: unignited jet fuel fell 90+ floors and exploded

No 2 Testimony Phillip Morelli was walking beside the main freight shaft on sub level 4

"As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. The impact of the explosion or whatever happened threw me to the floor. And that’s when everything started happenin'. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was, you just assumed something fell over in the loading dock. Something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened then all of a sudden you just felt the floor movin' and you get up... the walls, you know now I'm hearing that the main freight car, the elevators, you know what I mean fell down so I was right near the main freight car so I assumed what that was. Then you heard that [the main feight car] comin' towards ya.”

http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

Assuming that the above explosion experienced by Philip Morelli was the same explosion heard by Felipe David then this testimony is very useful since we discover that AFTER Morelli experienced the explosion he heard the freight elevator car falling. Because we know that Felipe David was standing on B-1 we know that the freight elevator car was ABOVE HIM when he got burned from intense heat.

We do not know exactly where the freight elevator was when Felipe David got burned however in an interview with Larry King the following details were given by Arturo Griffith

“Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped.”

So elevator car 50 left B-2 and was ascending for approximately 7 seconds. We dont know exactly where it was when its occupants heard the first explosion but we can safely assume it was ABOVE Felipe David on the B-1 floor.

Now in light of this information let us return to Felipe David

A1: David was burnt by a fireball that fell 90+ floors

A2: David was burnt by unignited jet fuel that fell 90+ floors and exploded

Now its time to debunk...
A1 is impossible because a fireball could not pass elevator car 50 undetected and then burn Felipe David

A2 is impossible because jet fuel could not pass elevator car 50 undetected. Since the elevator car was not airtight the descending jet fuel would have entered the car and would have thereby been detected by the olfactories. Only 1 ppm of jet fuel in air is detectable by the human nose.

But this argument, in relation to A2 JREF’s unofficial explanation, is not enough for some. They argue that

it ONLY requires jet fuel to descend to the basement, and once there aerosol and ignite. The aerosol of jet fuel can occur at any time, and at multiple times, in multiple locations

As you can see it is near impossible to argue against proponants of this Harry Potter logic that ignores all the variables involved such as temperature, UEL/LEL, ignition source, et cetera. However the following argument should be considered as supplimentary to the “olfactory detection argument” above. The following argumnet can also be applied to the official fireball explanation.

110 floors = 417m
93 floors = 388m
Raindrop falls @ 9m/s
ETA jet fuel to basement = 45 seconds
Taking overpressure into consideration = approx. 30 seconds

Car 50 ascended approx. 7 seconds from B2

Plane impact: (i) severed elevator cables and (ii) jet fuel started to fall down shaft
ETA jet fuel to basement B1 = 30 secs
ETA car 50 to basment B1 = (guesstimation no more than 15 secs)
Conclusion: it is not possible for jet fuel to catch much less pass car 50

Implication:
- we know car 50 was above Felipe David
- that means explosion happened below car 50
- that means jet fuel had to pass car 50 and then explode
- this is not possible since car 50 reached B1 long before the jet fuel
- so whatever exploded below car 50 and Felipe David was not caused by unignited jet fuel falling 90+ floors, aerosolising, and then exploding.

Possible objections:
(1)car 50 was not above Felipe but already arrived at B1-2 when Felipe heard explosion

(a)this objection ignores the testimony of Philip Morelli,
(b)it ignores the testimony of Marlene Cruz (which I discuss in greater detail later)
(c)if car 50 already arrived at B1-2 then Felipe would’ve heard the free falling car 50 passing before he heard the explosion below. Because he did not hear car 50 passing we can assume that car 50 was above Felipe when he heard the explosion.
(d)if car 50 already arrived at B1-2 when Felipe heard the explosion then the occupants of car 50 would also have been burnt by the intense heat. Because they were not burnt by the intense heat we can assume that car 50 was above Felipe when felt the intesne heat from the explosion below

(2)the falling jet fuel did reach Felipe David before car 50

(a)please suppport such an argument with sound reasoning
(b) and then address the "olfactory detection argument"

(3)

had Felipe David experienced a high explosive detonation he would have been ripped apart. His injuries are a result of heat damage and not detonation damage.

(a) Your wrongly assuming Felipe was standing in close proximity to the blast wave. Obviously because he was not ripped to pieces we can rule this possibility out. In truth nobody knows the exact location of the explosion. Testimony however from William Rodriguez and a dozen others on B1 suggests that the explosion came from somwhere within the mechanical room below. If this was true, then this confirms that Felipe was not standing next to the immediate blast wave.

(b) Besides miscellaneous injuries from explosives include “burns from fire or radiation” http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=204602 There were burn injuries from the 1993 WTC bombing, the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing etc. So unless you are arguing that explosives can’t cause burn injuries I don’t see the point in your objection above.

so gumboot, i will waiting for your response. and please avoid ducking or avoiding the main problems i.e. the arguments that prove your JREF unofficial explanation - IMPOSSIBLE

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Moving on, let us revisit the testimony of Marlene Cruz

No 3 Marlene Cruz was inside the freight elevator car 50

“I was gonna go do a job, and I got on the elevator – the freight elevator – and I heard the first explosion, and the elevator blew up, and the doors blew up, and it dropped. I was lucky that the elevator got caught between two floors, the “B” levels, the basement floors, you know, where all the mechanics are. And with the screaming and yelling the coworkers pulled the elevator guy out and myself…When I heard that explosion, the first thing I thought was, “Here we go again: another bomb.” [she had survived the 1993 bombing]

http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

The (a) “explosion came from below” interpretation is more compatible than the (b) “explosion came from above” interpretation

-the car was blown “up” and the doors “blew up” supports (a) over (b)

-indeed it makes no sense how an explosion approx. 75+ floors above could cause the elevator and doors to blow upwards.

-As explained the jet fuel or fireball could not reach car 50 until it had stopped. But by that time the damage was ALREADY done to the elevator doors. This fact supports (a) over (b)

-The fact that the explosion immediately reminded her of the “1993 bombing” supports (a) over (b) because the 1993 bomb exploded in the basment not in the upper sections of the building

-The fact that some people on the 91st floor didn’t hear the impact on the 93rd floor supports (a) over (b) because it seems highly unlikely that occupants in car 50, presumably below the the 15th floor, could hear the impact 75+ floors above.

-The fact that Cruz associates the physical damage to the elevator door with the explosion support (a) over (b) because the “sound” of an explosion 75+ floors above could hardly inflict structural damage to an elevator.

-Philip Morelli’s testimony supports (a) over (b) because it confirms that an explosion was heard first and then car 50 fell afterwards.

-Felipe David’s testimony supports (a) over (b) because it confirms that explosion was heard before an elevator fell

Possible objections:
(1)But Arturo Griffith stated the “ominous noise from above”?

(a)after checking the source, these words are not said by Arturo Griffith but by Thomas Sutcliffe the person who wrote the article for the London Independent
(b)assuming they were his own words he could have been mistaken and believed the sound came from above (speed of sound is 340m/s, doppler effect)
(c)any interview I have heard of Griffith he never re-states that the noise comes from above
(d)Marlene Cruz, the other occupant of car 50 never stated the noise came from above
(e)Given Griffith’s state of mine during the ordeal (hands over head thinking i’m gonna die!!), given the fact that he never experienced the 1993 bombing, and given the fact that he did not maintain consciousness throughout the entire ordeal – more weight, if any, should be ascribed to the testimony of Marlene Cruz who seems to have possessed far more presence of mind during the traumatic experience.

(2)But how could the explosion from below cause the elevator to drop?

(a) It didn’t. The explosion below happen either just before the plane impact (Rodriguez’s account), simultaneously, or just after the plane impact above. It was the cables being severed that caused the elevators to drop.

 

[DGM]

Soul:
What do you plan to do with your "smoking gun"?

 

[Norseman]

What a tour de force in word twisting far, far beyond what your sources warrant, thewholesoul. I'll see if I get around to comment on some of it during the weekend. But that I will only do for the benefit of the lurkers and new readers who might stumble across this thread in the future.

ETA
New York Times: Ideas & Trends; For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing