Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[Jonnyclueless]

I read from your post:

1. The car was parked
2. A blast getting through the elevator door and the car.

But the car was not destroyed. It was still there only burned. After your scenario (point 1,2) the blast had to destroy the car completely.

my reference:
"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)

Time to go back and re-read the thread. The thread is my reference.

 

[bio]

this is my reference:

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless:
"I asked why you have no problem with a blast getting through both an elevator door AND an elevator car, but question how it's possible for it to penetrate ONLY the elevator doors."

 

[LashL]

this is my reference:

Perhaps you should consult with "thewholesoul". One of you claims that the only possible location of elevator cars 6 and 7 is at the B1 level and one of you claims that the only possible location of elevator cars 6 and 7 is at the lobby level.

I happen to think that you are both wrong about these contradictory assertions, which you each make as though they are factual (even though they are not, and even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever in support of your contradictory assertions), but how about you two duke it out, come to a consensus, and then come on back for discussion, okay?

 

[bio]

Perhaps you should consult with "thewholesoul". One of you claims that the only possible location of elevator cars 6 and 7 is at the B1 level and one of you claims that the only possible location of elevator cars 6 and 7 is at the lobby level.

No - it is not about us, it is about the truth.

Are there really two contradictory references, which we quoted:

1. After NIST the cars were parked and burned in the basement,

2. and Dave Bobbitt said:

Dave Bobbitt, Port Authority Operations
"When entering the North Tower, we saw the marble on the walls was severely cracked, and Riccardelli told everyone to stay back from the walls. Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out." –Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center

I do not see a contradiction.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

this is my reference:

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless:
"I asked why you have no problem with a blast getting through both an elevator door AND an elevator car, but question how it's possible for it to penetrate ONLY the elevator doors."

So did ya go back and read the thread to understand the conversation you jumped in on? The one talking about the quote about the doors being blown off in the lobby and the claim that it was proof the elevator cars were in the lobby?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And there's no contradiction, the issue is the assumptions that you are making on the two references because you guys keep assuming that "elevator doors" means "elevator car".

There are doors on each floor of the building. When the elevator car is not on a floor, what do you call the doors to it on that floor? That's right, you say 'elevator doors". If you go to wait for the elevator you do wait in front of the elevator doors. You don't know if there is a car behind them or not. But they are still elevator doors. Even if the guy had left out the word "door" and simply said elevator only, he could still just as easily mean the same thing.

When reading witness testimony, aside from taking into account it's not the word of God, you have to learn not to make vast assumptions based on what you WANT to find, which has NOTHING to do with truth. What you mean by truth is simply your pre-determined conclusion.

 

[bio]

Dave Bobbitt said nothing about a car ... right. He told us about elevator doors. right.
According to Bobbitt elevator doors 5,6 were blown off in the lobby. How is this possible, if the cars 5,6 were not parked there?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why would the cars have to be there for it to be possible? The cars onl make it harder for it to happen.

 

[Norseman]

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,........

This is the second time thewholesoul, as far as I know, that you wrongly claim that Mike McQuaid did not hear the "explosion". The first time I pointed out your mistake in my post #309 in this thread. In response to my post you claimed that you made a honest mistake in your post #314 in this thread. And then 4 days later you repeat the same mistake.

 

[Norseman]

P.S. If I thought that you were even remotely genuinely interested in truth, reality, or rational and critical thinking, I would gently point out your errors and gently explain why and how you went wrong, but I am of the opinion that you are merely trolling for kicks, and I prefer not to play silly games with trolls, particularly when they are so obvious.

Well said LashL, thewholesoul has shown himself as a true troll in my view.

 

[Disbelief]

Dave Bobbitt said nothing about a car ... right. He told us about elevator doors. right.
According to Bobbitt elevator doors 5,6 were blown off in the lobby. How is this possible, if the cars 5,6 were not parked there?

So, when there is no elevator car at the lobby, someone can walk right into the shaft? No, there are doors there, like has been explained to you repeatedly.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No - it is not about us, it is about the truth.

Are there really two contradictory references, which we quoted:

2. and Dave Bobbitt said:

Dave Bobbitt, Port Authority Operations
"When entering the North Tower, we saw the marble on the walls was severely cracked, and Riccardelli told everyone to stay back from the walls. Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out." –Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center

I do not see a contradiction.

Bolded:
Just an FYI, there were wide spread reports of such damaged resulting from the force of the impacts of the planes against the towers, from immediately below the impact zones, down to the lobby level.

 

[thewholesoul]

hey bear

for A: the sound of the explosion in the mechanical room BEFORE a fireball arrived to the basement was, you say

- an electrical transformer
- the sound of steel impacting
- bodies hitting the ground

the trouble is when you enter an argument at such a late date you will tend to misunderstand my position. i suggest you read the entire thread.

the sound of the explosion i was refering was the first explosion experienced by many individuals in the basement. it was heard somwhere between B1 ad B3.

yes it could have been an electrical tranformer and on its own this sounds reasonable, however, on its own it fails to account for all the other phenomena that occured along with the first explosion such as causing the building to shake, causing Felipe's skin to be burnt off, throwing morelli to the ground presumably several floors below the exploding transformer etc. so your explanation lacks cohesion. see my post on the elephant and the blind man.

the sound of steel falling down an elevator shaft would naturally impact the shaft pit at B4 and B6. this would not cause a sound to be perceived above people in the B4. falling debris does not take horizontal turns. again see other posts on this. (288)

falling bodies is even more ridiculous. the sound came from inside the building and falling bodies impacted outside the building. unless you wish to argue that falling bodies fell down the elevator shaft (as did Norseman) but even if you do, this line of reasoning is faces the same problem s as trhe falling steel.

-- Point C & D
You have stated to me that there is no supporting evidence to support my claim that the torsion of the towers during the plane impacts contributed to some of the dame to the lobby windows, despite my providing a precedent that the flexibility of steel structures allow for movement when a horizontal force sufficient to shift the building is applied.

fine i accept. it perhaos accounted for some damage but thios damage was negligible and i cannot find testimony in the lobby of teh north tower that supports the idea that the windows were blown out by "sway"

Gee... I'd say just looking at the time of the plane impact we've touched upon a good number of points that you brought up as criteria to support your explosives theory, and no less confirming my earlier point of the building receiving some of its damage just from being knocked out of center by the planes as well.

So lets' recap what all of those accounts cover:
(a) Sound of explosion
(b) Smoke
(c) Glass blown out
(d) Building shaking
(k) People running and screaming
(l) People thrown to the floor
(*) people's skin burnt off

-- Not to forget the various accounts of damage that were reported THROUGHOUT the interior of the building just from the impacts alone. The smoke can be explained by electrical shorts and malfunctioning light fixtures, etc.

where you go wrong my firend is WHEN these events occured. WHEN all this happened is the most crucial point becuase they all are reported to have occured BEFORE a fireball arrived to the basement as reported in the tetsimony of Arturo Griffith.

-- Jet fuel certainly made it quite far down according to the witness accounts

yes but no sooner than 30 seconds after impact. see my post 329

-- the fireballs made it down to at least the lobby level

yes but no sooner than 30 seconds. and it made it down to B4. try answer post 329

-- the building motion experienced in the shifting and torquing of the towers affected many floors BELOW the impact down to the lobby and concourse

you assume that when people talk of the building shaking that the plane impact and not something else was the cause of this shaking.

-- Where people 'feel' as though they felt the origins of explosions doesn't mean that the explosion originated from other 'secondary devices'

....

-- Pertaining to the mass panic, it seems to me like the plane impacts were more than enough to keep people's attention, I'm sure falling elevators more than warrant panic... The mass panic is a weak point at best considering that the planes alone generated it.

planes imapcting 90+ floors above will not send people in the absemnt levels running around screaming. becuase they had no idea a plane had hit the building. a falling elevator would not send me into a panic, if i were inside the falling elevator then yes i would be panicing.

--Piles of bodies... well hey... people were jumping out of windows from the upper floor, and landing outside, and not everybody managed to escape the elevators at the onset of the events, another weak case...

the piles of bodies were INSIDE the lobby!

Really, I'd like an explanation... perhaps it fails to cover a few of your criteria, but the vast majority of them have explanations that contradict your assumption the the only possible source of these noises is explosives

the REASON i claim that a bomb is the ONLY possible explanation is because the explosion that - I am addressing - occurs BEFORE a fireball arrives in the basemen. please read post 288 and 329. orientate yourself in this argument before posting.

I suggest you eliminate all of these before you come to a preconceived notion to bombs.
Thanks for playing, looking forward to your answers

i am eliminating nothing. i have thought about everything before i posted it.
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

I don't know why I am adderssing this, because it shows the utmost lack of any logical thinking what so ever:

a) Sound of explosion
(b) Smoke
(c) Glass blown out
(d) Building shaking
(e) Elevador door blown up
(f) Walls blown rubble
(g) 3+ consecutive walls blown down
(h) 300pound steel fire door crumbled up
(i) Steel beams blown apart
(j) Clothes blown off
(k) People running and screaming
(l) People thrown to the floor
(m) Skin burnt off
Body parts blown off
(o) Pile of dead bodies

These are all traits of planes crashing into a building, fires, and a collapsing building.

You claim that some of them are evidence of explosives. So we have two possibilities. Explosives or something actually possible. One has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, and the other has enough evidence for an open/shut case. Yet soul here thinks that the scenario with no evidence is more plausible than the scenario WITH evidence.

This is an issue of medication levels.

Oh and I almost forgot:

"Needless to say that ALL (a) to (o) can be causally explained by a bomb"

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

hey clueless i may have to treat you like professor beachnut if the above is going to be your standard of a any future response.

the list of events occured from the LOBBY TO THE BASEMENT; and no they cannot be explained by the impact of a plane 90+ FLOORS ABOVE. but why dont you make the argument and look like a complete idiot in the process

the sadest part is clueless, that my post satisfied YOUR OWN STANDARD FOR EVIDENCE and just look at the reply you give! very sad indeed.

one last thing.

NAME ONE of the above list that CANNOT be caused by a bomb. go on, name ONE that cannot be caused by a bomb.

 

[thewholesoul]

I suggest you eliminate all of these before you come to a preconceived notion to bombs.
Thanks for playing, looking forward to your answers

hey grizzly i noticed you failed to address point #2

the number of phenomena that cannot be explained by a fuel deflagration because a fuel deflagration does not have a high enough psi.

the ONLY logical counter is to deny that (g) (h) (i) (o) occured. are you denying they occured? thats a yes or no.

also when you recapped on the list in point #1 you include (c) glass blowing out. i never included (c) in point #1. you also excluded (m) Felipe's burn injuries. so next time you offer a critique please try to get what i said correctly.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

punch of intellectual cowards and irrationals

Mike McQuaid, the electrician installing fire alarms, was sure he knew what he was feeling: an exploding transformer, from a machine room somewhere below the 91st floor. Nothing else could rock the place with such power.

Mike McQuaid: 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?
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts91-60

Post 309 Norseman said:

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.

Post 314 i said:

The significant thing about McQuaid’s testimony is hearing the explosion from below and not above.

Then i wrote the following "Mike McQuaid did not hear the explosion when it was only two floors above his head"

This is the second time thewholesoul, as far as I know, that you wrongly claim that Mike McQuaid did not hear the "explosion". The first time I pointed out your mistake in my post #309 in this thread. In response to my post you claimed that you made a honest mistake in your post #314 in this thread. And then 4 days later you repeat the same mistake.

No its not the second time. the first time you were right to correct me because i wrongly said that McQauid did not hear any explosion. But you are wrong to say that i made the same mistake twice. The point i was making was very clear i was saying that it seems highly unlikely that occupants in car 50 could hear the plane impact 75+floors above when McQuaid did not hear the impact of the plane two floors above his head.

You have reduced yourself to a ninny because you are unable to counter my arguments.

Why dont you do something useful and counter my post 288, 329, 377. if you are not going to bother then dont post to me again. I really expected a higher standard of debate from you but unfortunately you have chosen that path of beachnut.

P.S. If I thought that you were even remotely genuinely interested in truth, reality, or rational and critical thinking, I would gently point out your errors and gently explain why and how you went wrong, but I am of the opinion that you are merely trolling for kicks, and I prefer not to play silly games with trolls, particularly when they are so obvious.

Well said LashL, thewholesoul has shown himself as a true troll in my view.

Would you just listen to the rubbish ouzing from lashl. Hey Lashl why dont you gentle address post 288, 329 and 377???????? Sometimes i think you enter this forum just to type words.

I am no troll, and you have lost my respect for saying so Norseman. I am leaving this thread because you are all a pack of intellectual cowards and irrationals.

Why dont you go rebute post 288 329 377? Other wise just stick a sock in it Norseman

but to prove my point: in relation to post 377, point no2; i gave a list of 5 or so phenomena that cannot be possibly explained by a fuel deflagration because a fuel deflagration does not have a psi greater than 5.

YES or NO Norseman are you denying that (g) (h) (i) (o) did not occur?
have YOU the intellectual honesty to even answer this straight question?

if you cant answer this simple yes no question then i suggest you stick to the level of name calling and look to debate someone other than myself

 

[Jonnyclueless]

hey clueless i may have to treat you like professor beachnut if the above is going to be your standard of a any future response.

the list of events occured from the LOBBY TO THE BASEMENT; and no they cannot be explained by the impact of a plane 90+ FLOORS ABOVE. but why dont you make the argument and look like a complete idiot in the process

the sadest part is clueless, that my post satisfied YOUR OWN STANDARD FOR EVIDENCE and just look at the reply you give! very sad indeed.

one last thing.

NAME ONE of the above list that CANNOT be caused by a bomb. go on, name ONE that cannot be caused by a bomb.

My standard of evidence is not making vast assumptions. That's it. That's what everyone here does. YOU are the one making the claims. And you can't say tehy cannot be explained by the plane impact. Your standard of evidence is trying to rule out anything that doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusion that there were bombs. Ours is by using the evidence at hand and not making things up.

Because you don't see how the explosions could be caused by the planes, you simply assume they are impossible. And that is more so a matter of you simply looking for any way possible to make it seem impossible and you do so by making assumptions and pretending they are concrete facts.

YOU are a con artist kid, nothing more. And you now get upset because your logical fallacies don't fly on a forum full of engineers and scientists. Yes I am sure these little cute tricks of yours probably more than impress the braniacs over in the conspiracy forums, but it simply doesn't work here kid.


Now again, what is your proof of bombs? Please show us just one piece of physical evidence of bombs. Not a list of effects that can be caused by the many many events that HAVE been proven there.

Here is your logic:

I hear the sound of hooves, therefore it proves that there are Zebras nearby. Is the sound of hooves not evidence of Zebras? Yes I know there were horses seen, but hove sounds proves zebras.

Who the heck do you think you are kidding? You really thought you could come here and con people just because it works on a conspiracy forum?

 

[thewholesoul]

Perhaps you should consult with "thewholesoul". One of you claims that the only possible location of elevator cars 6 and 7 is at the B1 level and one of you claims that the only possible location of elevator cars 6 and 7 is at the lobby level.

I happen to think that you are both wrong about these contradictory assertions, which you each make as though they are factual (even though they are not, and even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever in support of your contradictory assertions), but how about you two duke it out, come to a consensus, and then come on back for discussion, okay?

you know what lashl i will concede to my fellow truther because if the truth be known, i dont give a hoot where the car 6 and 7 were located. we do know they were inoperable. the fact is it doesnt make a blind bit of difference to my argumnets 288, 329, 377. i have debunked the fireball hypothesis, the unignited jet fuel (where is the noradninja hiding?), and the falling debris hypothesis. the only explanation for the first basement explosion is a bomb. deal with it.

of course iof you disagree you can always refute the points i make in post 288, 329, 377...but your not going to do that are you LASHL too much like hard work.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And here's another hint, because a witness THINKS a sound came from a certain direction does not make that direction the source of the noise. Sound does nt work that way. Especially when you have sound traveling not only through air, but through metal, and both at different speeds. And also at extremely low frequencies which are omnidirectional and make direction difficult to tell. If its a large noise, the floors and walls are going to shake. The men who heard it are going to feel it most on the surface they are touching, which is going to be the floor. So an explosion above can EASILY be mistaken for below.

The main point being that to make these conclusions based on the testimony alone is completely dishonest and irresponsible.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"i have debunked the fireball hypothesis"

NO YOU HAVE NOT. You can say it all you want, but it's only in your head.