Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[TexasJack]

BOMB-IN-BASEMENT ouch my head hurts even tpying those words

another quality JREF response!

Thank You.

 

[LashL]

only because you misunderstood my point. i was comparing the cannon ball with a counterweight not a fireball.



according to NIST there are only three. 6 7 and 50



yes fuel can only fall downwards in an elevator shaft

if that shaft is closed then it will require an explosion in order to exit that shaft. but the fuel required to create explosion will be consumed. and the plane only deposited the jet fuel once so there will not be a resupply of falling fuel.

That is yet another mighty fine example of cherrypicking for purposes of obfuscation by you, thewholesoul. It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic, obvious, and dishonest.

Keep it up and you might earn the Truther(tm) Badge of Merit yet!

Unfortunately, all it gets you in the real world is noted among intelligent people as a dishonest troll.

 

[twinstead]

BOMB-IN-BASEMENT ouch my head hurts even tpying those words

another quality JREF response!

UNICORN-IN-BASEMENT is just as easy to say. Proving the unicorn existed and why it would be there is the complicated part.

 

[adoucette]

and i will keep saying it.

if you drop a counterweight it will not get deflected from a hollow elevator car - news flash - it will go right through it much like a cannon ball would.

even after falling 90+ floors the debris that did fall on car 50 was not heavy enough to penetrated the ceiling of the car. this means that the debris that fell was not particularly heavy. i agree that this debris would naturally be deflected but because it could not penetrate the ceiling of a hollow elevator car i seriously doubt it could have burst through an elevator shaft wall given the fact that most of its energy was expended upon impact with the elevator car.

There would be cables attached to the counterweight, so it isn't at all like a cannon ball.

The Elevator cars, designed to hold 10,000 lbs and be lifted at 1,600 ft per minute weren't built like tin cans.

The elevator shafts however WERE just two layers of SheetRock.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

BOMB-IN-BASEMENT ouch my head hurts even tpying those words

another quality JREF response!

Clearly you've but a lo of thought into this theory of yours.

 

[bio]

ad hominem

That is yet another mighty fine example of cherrypicking for purposes of obfuscation by you, thewholesoul. It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic, obvious, and dishonest.

Keep it up and you might earn the Truther(tm) Badge of Merit yet!

Unfortunately, all it gets you in the real world is noted among intelligent people as a dishonest troll.

Are such ad hominem - attacks your standard of "debunking" here?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

 

[LashL]

Are such ad hominem - attacks your standard of "debunking" here?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Oh, look, yet another newcomer whose very first post happens to be, quite innocently, I'm sure, in this particular sub-forum and this particular thread, who doesn't have a clue about what the ad hominem logical fallacy actually is.

How utterly unsurprising.

Here's an idea: how about you educate yourself about logical fallacies, learn how to read for comprehension, and then come on back if you have any interest whatsoever in legitimate discussion?

 

[Norseman]

(4d) In post #138, I argue that the testimony from Marlene Cruz suggests that the explosion she first heard came from below rather than above the freight elevator car 50. If this is true, coupled with the fact she did not receive burn injuries then this would further support the claim that car 50 was some distance above David at the time of the basment explosion.

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.

I see thewolesoul, your only proof that the first explosion Marlene Cruz heard came from below is a literal interpretation of the expression "blew up". There is distinct possibility that she used that expression in a figurative way, to describe the damage the elevator sustained when coming to a halt and being hit with debris from above. Like concrete:

Cruz: "Well, like I said, I was going to, I got on the 50 car, which is the freight elevator. I was going to do a job on the 46th floor. And the elevator operator closed the door. It was just me and him in the elevator. All of a sudden I heard that explosion, and the doors blew, and the elevator dropped, and there was smoke, and fire, and water all over the place. Debris, concrete: you name it, just fell on top of us. He was out cold for a second."

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

And are your really sure that she is listing the events in the right sequence of order here thewholsoul? Something I have pointed out to you before. Because Arturo Griffith has a somewhat different sequence of events:

A. 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. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening.

When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me, and they say that they was trying to get my attention and they didn't get no response from me.

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/lklw.00.html

 

[thewholesoul]

I see thewolesoul, your only proof that the first explosion Marlene Cruz heard came from below is a literal interpretation of the expression "blew up".

Wrong you only see what you want to see. Re-read post 238, I provided 8 reasons, not just one Norseman. Admittedly, the “literal interpretation” is perhaps the weakest of the 8 reasons provided, however because the explosion did come from below car 50 I included it and you would have done exactly the same thing in my position.

There is distinct possibility that she used that expression in a figurative way, to describe the damage the elevator sustained when coming to a halt and being hit with debris from above. Like concrete:

Marlene Cruz claims on more than one occassion that the elevator doors blew up before the elevator stopped. Go re-read her testimony:

#1 “I heard the first explosion, and the elevator blew up, and the doors blew up, and it dropped”

#2 “All of a sudden I heard that explosion, and the doors blew, and the elevator dropped”

Norseman, no objective minded person could read those two extracts and conclude with what you have stated above. I maybe guilty of literal-interpretation but you my friend are guilty of mis-interpretation. It seems to me that she associates the explosion with the elevator blowing up. Now ask yourself what is a more probable explanation: (a) an explosion 75+ floors above caused the elevator to blow up or (b) an explosion 15-18 floors below caused the elevator to blow up? Besides the “sound” of the explosion above, even if heard, could not in itself cause an elevator to blow up.

Furthermore it was after the elevator and elevator door blew up that car 50 began to fall. This fact rules out the falling debris as an explanation because the car fell when the cables were cut and falling debris cannot travel at the speed of sound. Besides given the description of the damage to the door by both Cruz and Griffith falling concrete could not be used as an explanation. I covered this already Norseman in post 234 point no.7.

And are your really sure that she is listing the events in the right sequence of order here thewholsoul? Something I have pointed out to you before. Because Arturo Griffith has a somewhat different sequence of events:

Griffith

There was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator... I didn't know what was happening...When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator

I can admit their testimony differs. But why should I give more weight to Griffiths account over Cruz? He “didn't know what was happening” and after he was rendered “unconscious” is it not conceivably that he simply forgot that the elevator door was blown up by the first explosion?

But hey your right, their testimony does conflict somewhat on this aspect. But on others it corroborates, for example, they both claim to have seen smoke before the fireball arrived. This fact alone cannot be explained by falling debris but can be easily explained by an explosion in the basement which of course supports my claim that the explosion heard by both Cruz and Griffith came from below.

Seriously Norseman, exactly whose testimony are you using to support that the explosion heard by the occupants inside car 50 came from above? Neither Cruz or Griffith ever claim they heard the explosion coming from above. In fact, the explosion immediately reminded Cruz of the 1993 bombing which came from below in the basement. There is however one article in the London Independent that states Griffith heard an “ominous noise from above”. But these words were not of Arturo Griffth himself but from the author a week after the event.

Regardless of the fact they were in an elevator shaft. Given that Mike McQauid did not hear the explosion when it was only two floors above his head, it seems unlikely that Cruz and Griffth heard the same explosion 75+ floors above their head. So I doubt that they actually heard the explosion of the plane impact. it is far more likely that they heard the explosion from below.

 

[X]

Are such ad hominem - attacks your standard of "debunking" here?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Which means that if LashL had said something along the lines of "your are a troll and therefore your argument is wrong", he would be guilty of an ad-hominem attack.

However, he did not do this. He stated that TheWholeSoul was cherry picking, an argument I expect LshL could back up.
Then he stated that TheWholeSoul was a dishonnest troll.

That is an insult, not an ad-hominem.

To summarize:
You are wrong and you are a troll -> not ad-hom.
You are wrong because you are a troll -> ad-hom.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Did anyone yet point out how this is proof of bombs?

 

[thewholesoul]

Which means that if LashL had said something along the lines of "your are a troll and therefore your argument is wrong", he would be guilty of an ad-hominem attack.

However, he did not do this. He stated that TheWholeSoul was cherry picking, an argument I expect LshL could back up.
Then he stated that TheWholeSoul was a dishonnest troll.

That is an insult, not an ad-hominem.

To summarize:
You are wrong and you are a troll -> not ad-hom.
You are wrong because you are a troll -> ad-hom.

after your display of intellectual masturbation are you going to refute my post 329?

 

[Norseman]

But hey your right, their testimony does conflict somewhat on this aspect. But on others it corroborates, for example, they both claim to have seen smoke before the fireball arrived. This fact alone cannot be explained by falling debris but can be easily explained by an explosion in the basement which of course supports my claim that the explosion heard by both Cruz and Griffith came from below.

This can easily be explained by falling debris like concrete and gypsum plasterboard coming down from the impact zone. And do not forget decades of dust stirred up from inside the shaft by the falling elevator and the vibrations created by the impact of Flight 11.

This is how a person inside an elevator inside WTC 2 described it after Flight 175 caused their elevator car to fall, their shaft went all the way from the ground lobby up into the impact zone:

Mann found himself trapped in a corner of the elevator, lying on top of someone. Debris and dust filled his mouth. Other passengers screamed and moaned. He heard other elevators crashing nearby.

Source: USA TODAY

From the 44th floor in WTC 2:

My eyes focused on a
nearby out-of-service elevator. The impact had created a shock wave through the
entire building that forced dust at a high velocity from all four sides of the
elevator doors to the inside of the lobby.

Source: http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/9393

And are you really sure that people can differentiate between smoke and dust? From WTC 1 B4:

Male: Are there any smoke conditions there?

Male: Yeah, we got smoke. I don’t know whether it’s (inaudible) soot or whether it’s dust, but we got smoke and water lines...(inaudible) ...Building One. PA Transcript, PA Ch. 15 – NYC EMS Direct Line

Source: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/
(The same call is also found in: WTC - Ch. 08 - Police Desk - 3541 Left)

 

[thewholesoul]

the blind man and the elephant

This can easily be explained by falling debris like concrete and gypsum plasterboard coming down from the impact zone. And do not forget decades of dust stirred up from inside the shaft by the falling elevator and the vibrations created by the impact of Flight 11.

desperate times truly call for desperate measures eh.

you support your argument citing one individual who cannot distinquish between smoke and dust.

does it count if i told you that i can distinguish between smoke and dust?

but the person you cited was in the B4 level not the B1 level where Griffith was

but if it helps there was another person down in B4 there who think it was smoke

It’s, uh...both shops, they got people down there. You can’t go down there, because there’s smoke. PA Ch. 15 – NYC EMS Direct Line (p. 10)

i was going to cite the testimony of descriptions of smoke seen in the basement but i decided that would too laboursome.
+
So here are my objections:

1) gysum concrete and whatever else you want to drop down that elevator shaft will not - repeat will not - magically turn into smoke. give me a friggen break!!

2) car 50 was 5 floors above the shaft pit when it stopped so i seriously doubt that a car, no less than 50ft above the century old dust deposits will disturb it - to the extent that you imagine.

3) but let us just say i am dumb enough to swallow your explanation, the problem you still have is lack of cohesion between all the phenomena that occured before the fireball arrived (a) smoke (b) loud explosion (c) structural damage (d) felipe's burns and (e) people running and screaming in B1-2.

to explain your a lot like a blind man identifying an elephant: he says the trunk is a snake, the legs are tree trunks, the body is a barn and the tail is a piece of rope. although these suggestions may pass as explanations together they just dont add up. let me show you exactly what does:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EssXKHQISm8

now i know you still find the video of an elephant unconvincing, so lets have it Norseman, what burnt Felipe before the fireball arrived? let me guess friction caused by the falling elevator that he didnt hear and managed not to burn the occupants!

the problem is Norseman you have no rational justification behind your explanation. but be my guest keep looking and i will keep showing you the light of truth!!! (apologese for sounding intentionally annoying)

o yes as for the vibrations: do you think they will get stronger in distance and time as they move further away from the source? because that is what i would have to accept, if i were to accept your explanation. and assuming that the vibrations travel away friom the source and downwards how my dear friend do you expect to explain McQuaids account on the 91st floor who "felt" an explosion coming from below?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, can someone please explain how this is evidence of bombs?

 

[twinstead]

This is just more of the same old from the truth movement. ANYTHING, no matter how insignificant, that anybody could possibly imagine is the gospel truth, as long as it is contrary to the 'official story'.

Blech

 

[thewholesoul]

Again, can someone please explain how this is evidence of bombs?

what would count as evidence to you?

 

[TexasJack]

This argument is just so inane; what could possibly be the motive to place bombs in the basement of a top-down collapse?

 

[Alt+F4]

This argument is just so inane; what could possibly be the motive to place bombs in the basement of a top-down collapse?

Is this a bombs only theory or is it a bombs plus thermite theory? How big were these bombs? How were they detonated?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

what would count as evidence to you?

Are you not aware of what evidence is? How about something more than "people heard explosion sounds" which is absolutely NOT evidence since there are already 100s of events present that also cause explosion sounds. You need evidence would be something that can ONLY be caused by bombs, thus rulling out everything else.

Simply because there are factors involved in the events that you don't fully understand does not allow you to dismiss the most probable cause which is backed up by substantial evidence and replace it with a hypothesis that has absolutely no evidence what so ever.

OR, perhaps you or one of your twoofer scholars could provide us with a peer revieweed paper proving how bombs were used to demolish the WTC? Should be easy right?