Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[thewholesoul]

I wasn't trying to refute each one of your points. That gets tedious after a while, when we've seen the same tired arguments over and over.

i know we werent trying to refute my points beccause i know that you cant

besides if you seen the same arguments before then it should be easy to refute them?

the truth is you cant becuase the truth is my argument is the truth and the official hypothesis has no rational justification.

this one fallacy uncovers the major weakness of yours and every other truther's arguments: The hypothesis that a counterweight fell down the elevator shaft has zero unknown entities, because we know there was an elevator shaft, we know there was a counterweight, and we know there is such a thing as gravity.

The hypothesis that a bomb went off has one unknown entity: The bomb, for which there is no evidence

look i gave three reasons i based my conclusion on those reasons. i am sorry if you are unable to refute them, i am sorry that it means you must seek an alternative explanation, i am sorry that bombs in the basment are an alternative explanation - but you need to grow up and face reality

bombs exist right?
bombs have been used before in the SAME FRIGGEN BUILDING?

your fallacy is being irrational

 

[thewholesoul]

Soul:
Do you understand that the "walls" surrounding the elevator shafts are made of drywall only (usually double 5/8"). Not overly substantial.

so what

drop a canon ball down an elevator shaft and watch it make a horizontal turn.

The counterweight rides a separate rail system it would just fall starigh down

here: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2006082460&wo=2006082460&DISPLAY=CLAIMS

are methods to prevent free fall counterwieights.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Soul:
Do you understand that the "walls" surrounding the elevator shafts are made of drywall only (usually double 5/8"). Not overly substantial.

so what

drop a canon ball down an elevator shaft and watch it make a horizontal turn.

The counterweight rides a separate rail system it would just fall starigh down

here: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2006082460&wo=2006082460&DISPLAY=CLAIMS

are methods to prevent free fall counterwieights.

are you denying that there are safety measures for counterweights?
what is your evidence that the counterweight fell in theb twin towers?

peace

 

[DGM]

so what

drop a canon ball down an elevator shaft and watch it make a horizontal turn.

The counterweight rides a separate rail system it would just fall starigh down

here: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2006082460&wo=2006082460&DISPLAY=CLAIMS

are methods to prevent free fall counterwieights.

peace

Why are you showing me a patent from 2006? Did you not read it?

Did the lightly loaded car itself fall? This indicates that the counter weight would have to have been detached. If the weight was attached the car would not have fallen due to the weights (balance) effect.

 

[aggle-rithm]

funny, i bet if their testimony supported the official story you would nt be saying that.

If the testimony is CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE KNOW, I would not be saying that.

If someone is BASING a theory on eyewitness testimony alone, then I have a problem.

you see casting doubt ion testimony is you last last resort becuase you have no rational argument against my other premises.

that pleases me

besides the conclusion that Norsemans position violates the problem of resistence was not only based on testimony but on objective facts.

for example the elevator shaft only had one door on the north side.
ed mc cabe was on the south side
he experienced explosion
for the official story to be true it MUST violate the problem of resistence.

i posted 4 links of backdraft that demonstrate for anyone who cared to watch that freballs follow the path of least resistence

so there are objective facts - independent of testimony - that prove Norseman wrong.

the truth is you cant debunk my argument because
the truth is my argument is the truth
and the official story has NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION
and any rational person reading this forum will immediately recgonise the abject failure of people like you in attempting to debunk my arguments

peace

There is no "official story".

There is a generally accepted version of events, which is simple, straightforward, internally consistent, and relies on very few unknown entities.

Then there are theories such as yours that are needlessly complicated and filled with ad hoc explanations that serve no purpose but to bolster your weak arguments.

Any rational person would accept the first version over the second any day, regardless of your attempts to complicate the issue.

This "problem of resistance" relies on a belief that you understand the mechanics of the plane crash and subsequent side effects perfectly. I am skeptical of this.

 

[aggle-rithm]

bombs exist right?
bombs have been used before in the SAME FRIGGEN BUILDING?

your fallacy is being irrational

Wrong.

YOUR fallacy is both a strawman (no one has argued that bombs had never been used in the building) and a non sequitur (it doesn't follow that if bombs were used in the building once, then they were used on 9/11).

It is known that there was a plane crash at the tower on 9/11. Since a plane crash is a chaotic event that doesn't happen often, the behavior of a building that is struck by a plane is unpredictable, therefore it is irrational to say that certain physically plausible things CAN'T have happened. This is particularly true if your knowledge of the building's structure is incomplete. I'm willing to bet the farm that it is.

The bomb is an unnecessary entity. Period.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Has anyone listed the evidence of these magical bombs that went off and created fireballs after they exploded and served no purpose what so ever in the events that happened that day?

 

[Pardalis]

The bomb is an unnecessary entity.

Or maybe it was an entity?

 

[Norseman]

1)Sound of explosion: falling debris cannot explain why the explosion was heard above B4 and below B1 because falling debris cannot make horizontal turns and would naturally fall to the shaft pits located at B4 and B6.

2)Building and floor shaking: steel beams, aircraft parts, broken gypsum plates, bodies, concrete all falling together and impacting the shaft pit on B4 cannot explain why people on B1 felt the building shaking. Mike Mc Quaid was two floors below the impact and heard and felt nothing!

My bolding.

This is what Mike McQuaid said to New York Times:

I was talking to someone from American Bureau of Shipping [also on 91st floor]. I hear this explosion, like a transformer below. What the hell was that? The whole place shook. The hallway started filling up with smoke.

Source: New York Times - Accounts From the North Tower


Note also that Mike McQuaid thought that the explosion occurred below him, even though a large aircraft crashed into the building a couple of floors above him. The reader who wants to familiarize him-/herself with how people inside the towers experienced the impact should study this page and the following pages carefully: Some people near the aircraft impacts didn't hear them

The keen reader will then quiet easily see through thewholesou'sl dishonesty regarding the two claims I have quoted from his post, since thewholesoul is fully aware of the content of those pages, including what Mike McQuaid really said, that site by Mark Roberts has been thewholesoul's cherry tree throughout this thread.

 

[Norseman]

In the following link below there is a floorplan of B-4 . The yellow section is shaft 6 and 7 and the doorway is on the north face of this shaft pointing to the blue section which is the freight elevator shaft. http://911stories.googlepages.com/SublevelB4.jpg/SublevelB4-full.jpg

Any fireball that travelled down the 6 and 7 shaft would naturally emerge from the opening provided by the doorway – and continue, by and large, in that direction. Watch the following links below to visualize what I mean:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...33&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkNC...tics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099&page=3


For arguments sake let us assign the side where the doorway on the elevator shaft was situated as the “north-side”; now any structural damage to the east, west, and especially the south-side would mean that the fireball blasted down the shaft walls before it caused the structural damage. This of course would violate the “problem of resistence”.

Unfortunately for Norseman, this is exactly what must have happened. Ed McCabe was situated in a room on the “south-side” in relation to the 6, 7 shaft. For a fireball to reach Ed McCabe and blow the door to the room he was in "off its hinges" it had to take the path of most resistence through the shaft wall, and a further 3 walls one of which might well have been masonary. See this link to visualize the pathway a fireball would have to take: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3206011&postcount=54

Do you understand where you went wrong here thewholesoul? Because this is nonsense.

 

[LashL]

drop a canon ball down an elevator shaft and watch it make a horizontal turn.

This is silly. Firstly, neither jet fuel nor a fireball is in any way similar to a cannon ball, and you completely ignore the nature and properties of the chaotic disbursement of the fuel from ruptured fuel tanks resulting from the airplanes slamming into and destroying much of the core of the building upon impact.

Secondly, you completely ignore the inevitable transfer of fuel and/or fireballs due to multiple adjoining hoistways, elevator shafts, and utility shafts due to damage from the impact of the airplanes and the chaotic nature of the fuel disbursement. There are numerous paths that the fuel and fireballs could and would, therefore, take.

It's as though you think that fuel and fireballs could only travel downward in a couple of shafts that you imagine are hermetically sealed or something, and that is completely unrealistic.

 

[A W Smith]

well then you have no excuse for your ignorance

read the follwoing is a link: http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9603-002.htm
"The counterweight was up at the 80th floor. When the cables were cut, 10,000 lbs of steel started down, but luckily, the two governor cables were okay. The governor and safety caught the weight at the 76th floor and hung there."

you see the reason the counterweight fell in empire state building,according t the people who investigated it, is because the governor cable was severed. but not all counterwieghts fell because not all governor cables were severed.

i even posted a link that discusses these safety measures SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT FREE FALL of COUNTER WEIGHTS.

i provided ojective facts like the lack of damage to the elevator cars etc

where is your evidence taht the counter weight fell?
show me the beef, not your personal incredulity

peace

Check the date of your counterweight arrest patent.

Pub. No.: WO/2006/082460 International Application No.: PCT/IB2005/000273Publication Date:10.08.2006International Filing Date:03.02.2005

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2006082460&wo=2006082460&DISPLAY=STATUS

 

[aggle-rithm]

Has anyone listed the evidence of these magical bombs that went off and created fireballs after they exploded and served no purpose what so ever in the events that happened that day?

Unless I'm mistaken, only two kinds of bombs create fireballs:

1. Fuel-air bombs, which would be useless inside a building
2. Movie pyrotechnics, which create fireballs because they look cool

 

[thewholesoul]

where is your rebuttal Norseman?

This is what Mike McQuaid said to New York Times:

I was writing from memory and obviously errd. I recall that even you are sometimes prone to human fallibility. The significant thing about McQuaid’s testimony is hearing the explosion from below and not above. But I concede to your point and thereby withdraw McQuaids statement in relation to point 2.

But does that mean point 2 is refuted? not at all.

Lets see it again shall we:

Point (2): The building shaking cannot be explained by the impact of falling debris on the shaft pit.
-If you believe that falling debris impacting shaft pit B4 and B6 will cause the building to shake on B1 then you seriously need your head examined. The amount of falling debris required to cause the building to shake would destroy car 50, 6 and 7 when it passed. Because these cars were not destroyed when all this debris (supposedly) passed we can safely rule out debris as a possible explanation.

Lets see point (1) again: The sound of the explosion heard somewhere between B1 and B4 cannot be explained by debris falling down an elevator shaft because the debris would naturally fall straight down and could not take a horizontal turn after dropping 90+floors. this is basic basic reasoning that should have been discoved before you proposed falling debris as the explanation for the explosion between B1 and B4.

The keen reader will then quiet easily see through thewholesouls dishonesty regarding the two claims I have quoted from his post

As explained above i errd, I have no problem admitting that. It happens unfortunately. It was certainly not intentional and the retraction of McQuids statement makes no difference to the conclusion from point (2) and (1). If you think it does then spit it out.

The keen reader should also notice that you have not provided any rebuttal to my post. I argued that your "kitchen sink hypothesis" i.e. the falling debris cannot not explain any events 1-6 prior to the fireball. So Norseman, are you going to put my arguments on ignore? Or are you going to step up to the plate and rebute my arguments with reason and logic?

I for one am still waiting. And if you cannot rebute my conclusions then I will conclude that you have conceded to my argument and retracted your "kitchen sink hypothesis" as an explanation for the events in the basement (as mentioned in my post) prior to the fireball arriving. Thats how debates work I'm afraid.

Do you understand where you went wrong here thewholesoul? Because this is nonsense.

I dont know. maybe you can elaborate for us. But if your yet-to-be-known argument does not explain or refute the following fact then there is no need posting it:

"For a fireball to reach Ed McCabe and blow the door to the room he was in "off its hinges" it had to take the path of most resistence"

peace

 

[funk de fino]

thewholesoul

What was the purpose of the bombs you claim were in the basement?

 

[thewholesoul]

Why are you showing me a patent from 2006? Did you not read it?

Did the lightly loaded car itself fall? This indicates that the counter weight would have to have been detached. If the weight was attached the car would not have fallen due to the weights (balance) effect.

DGM i apologise for calling you ignorant in a previous post. I am forced to retract the patent in support of my claim that the counterwieight did not fall to the shaft pit.

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?
- how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

peace

and i will be awaiting a response. if you fail to respond i will be forced to conclude that you have conceded the claim that the counterweight did not fall to the basement pit. thats how debate works.

 

[funk de fino]

DGM i apologise for calling you ignorant in a previous post. I am forced to retract the patent in support of my claim that the counterwieight did not fall to the shaft pit.

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?
- how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

peace

and i will be awaiting a response. if you fail to respond i will be forced to conclude that you have conceded the claim that the counterweight did not fall to the basement pit. thats how debate works.

Bolded above. This is not how debate works. Stop posting it, it makes you look childish.

 

[DGM]

DGM i apologies for calling you ignorant in a previous post. I am forced to retract the patent in support of my claim that the counterweight did not fall to the shaft pit.

Apology accepted, (don't let it happen again )

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?

-

Why would they have to be? They're on their own rails and could have passed by easily. I don't see how there would be a requirement that they would have to damage the cars.

how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

This quote may explain it.

Morelli tried to take the stairs up to the lobby of the North Tower, but they were blocked by fallen debris. Fortunately, he knew the World Trade Center complex like a map—he had worked there for many years and was there during the 1993 terrorist bombing. Morelli made his way toward the South Tower, when he felt another violent shudder. So he changed direction again, went into the parking lot underneath the towers and ran the long way up the ramps into daylight. He finally left the complex just as the South Tower was collapsing. http://www.liuna.org/pubsnews/pdfs/AnniversaryMag/Pgs76_84.pdf

Sounds like debris of some sort fell above him. Was it the weights (probably not) but he does say he heard things falling in the shafts and the flimsy shaft walls are not going to contain anything of significant mass.

 

[adoucette]

The third one is this story:

This one is also found among the other accounts from the WTC 1 lobby and basement levels compiled by Mark Roberts:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

If we read the original source we learn that it was written by a person who has never met or spoken with the victim, Debbie Merrick. A couple of weeks after 9/11 the writer was assigned to a cubicle that contained a computer that was registered to Debbie.

The writer has heard accounts that Debbie Merrick was in the lobby of WTC 1 waiting for an elevator to visit Credit Union, when she got burned. And that Debbie died about 50 days later. That is basically the hard facts in the account. The remainder is just speculation by the writer about how Debbie Merrick could have been burned, because the writer is obviously aware of the fact that Credit Union was located on the 39th floor in WTC 1, according to the tenants lists I have checked. This was a floor that was severed by local elevators that did not go beyond zone 1 in WTC 1. While the aircraft impact site was up in zone 3.

But the fact is that it did not matter what elevator they were waiting for inside the elevator hallway on the ground floor of WTC 1. It is obvious from all the accounts that the complete hallway became an inferno, when the jet fuel fireball burst out of the elevator shafts that went up to the impact zone. Even people entering through the doors from the street got burned when the fireball shot out of the elevator hallway entrance facing the street. See also the photo I linked in post #258 earlier in this thread.

In other words this is just a case of thewholesoule using speculation to support his own speculation. This post was hardly worth the effort.

The issue of how fuel could have made it to the Zone 1 shafts is fairly easy to resolve.

Here is the question that TWS' asked:

so the question remains unanswered. how did the jet fuel travel down the utility shaft 50, and express elevator shaft 6 and 7 then TRANSFER into local elevator shafts in zone I? this is not possible. i am unable to rationally accept that the jet fuel can fall down the aforementioned shafts, stop, and take a horizonatal turn. i completely understand that the local elevators shared the same shaft so in zone III jet fuel transfer likely occured. but local elevator shafts terminated at the end of their respective zone and the jet fuel from the impact zone had no access, repeat NO ACCESS, to the elevator shaft in zone I because the elevator shaft of zone I it did not run through the impacted zone III.

Now here is a 3d rendering of the towers elevator shafts.

Note that the plane's impact, from the NIST simulations, would have intersected and potentially dumped large quantities of fuel in the N, O and P sets of elevator shafts (N = Mid Low Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 87-93, O = Mid High Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 94-99, P = High Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 100-107)

The amount of fuel dumped into the building was far more than would have burned up during the initial fireball, ~ 10,000 gallons, with ~8,000 gallons on floors 93-97 (NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Table 7-5) and a lot of this fuel would have expended its momentum in the core area (NCSTAR 1-2 - Fig 7-8). Its no great stretch to presume that a thousand or so gallons of fuel may have gone down the local Zone 3 elevator shafts as well as the Express and Freight elevator shafts.

But, as the question is about the fuel in the Zone 3 shafts, the salient point is that regardless of which floors they served, the Zone 3 elevators all ran in shafts that terminated on the 78th floor.

Which could easily explain the transfer to the Zone 1 shafts.

There were the C bank of 8 massive (10,000 lb capacity) Express Shuttles running from the lobby to the 78th floor (with their lift equipment above on the 79th floor) and there were also 3 10,000 lb capacity InterZone shuttles running from the 78th floor to the 44th floor where they overlapped with the B bank of 8 10,000 lb capacity Express shuttles that went from the 44th floor to the Lobby.

Thus while these various express elevators don't share the same vertical shafts as the Zone 3 local elevators, it is quite logical to presume that when a thousand or more gallons of jet fuel hit the bottom of the local shafts on the 78th floor that several hundreds or more gallons of jet fuel, at least, is going to wash over and down one or more of these express shafts that share the 78th floor and DO go to the lobby.

 

[R.Mackey]

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?
- how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

Counterweights travel in an entirely different space than the elevator itself. They pass beside each other. Otherwise you would require a shaft twice as high as the highest floor serviced. This is Not A Good Design.

And localizing loud sounds is difficult under the best of conditions. There were a great many loud things going on all at once, in a confined space. There are any number of explanations.

I honestly think you need to work on this a whole lot longer before pretending to be knowledgeable in the subject.