Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[Alt+F4]

the only explanation for the first basement explosion is a bomb.

Some other times people heard an explosion that wasn't a bomb. It was:

a train derailment

Mike Pettrey, who was driving in the area when the train derailed, said he heard an explosion...

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/14310516/detail.html

a busted steam pipe

The man in the photo was on the 17th floor of 370 Lexington Avenue, and heard an explosion, followed by rumbling...

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/on-the-scene-at.html

a UFO over Cambodia

Local villagers heard an explosion of an unidentified flying object or UFO...

http://english.ntdtv.com/?c=151&a=3384

stupid people extracting hash oil from marijuana

Neighbors heard an explosion...

http://www.druglibrary.org/MedicalMj/hash/lighting_cig_suspected_in_hash_o.htm

 

[thewholesoul]

My standard of evidence is not making vast assumptions. That's it.

NO your standard of evidence is the following:

evidence would be something that can ONLY be caused by bombs, thus rulling out everything else.

so eat your OWN WORDS clueless

and what sort of evidence is "not making vast assumptions", what rubbish are you talking man? imagine you're a lawyer and the judge says present your evidence clueless, and you say...the only evidence i have is not making vast assumptions!! you see how utterly ridiculous you sound?

That's what everyone here does.

everyone makes assumptions. in relation to the injuries incurred by Felipe you assume that a fireball or jet fuel fell 90+floors passed eloevator car 50 undetected and then exploded. i assume a bomb went off in the basement.

YOU are the one making the claims.

we are ALL making claims. the difference is i can back mine up with reason and testimony.

And you can't say tehy cannot be explained by the plane impact.

yes i can. i can even do better and demonstrate through deductive logic that your claims and your assumptions are false and impossible. so like i said, you go down that list and explain to everyone how a plane impact can explain all the phenomena that occured in the basement.

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.

my standard of evidence is the same as what your standard used to be before it morphed into "not making vast assumptions". but most embarressing of all is that i even predicted you would change your standard of evidence

I predict Clueless will change his own standard of evidence because if he actually maintains his own standard of evidence logic demands that he accept the existence of bombs in the basement

do you have any intellectual integrity? can you not admit when you're wrong?

Because you don't see how the explosions could be caused by the planes, you simply assume they are impossible.

wrong. i accept the fact that a fireball descended the shaft because it is said in Arturo Griffiths testimony and many others. so it actually happned.
what i argue is that the damage done in the basement before a fireball arrived could have been caused by a fireball - this is a friggin no brainer!!

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.

bla bla bla: you have my posts why dont present my statements and criticize them point by point.

in post 377 there are solid facts, things that happened e.g. someones legs being chopped off, that cannot be explained by a fule deflagration but can be explained by a bomb. what can you not accept what is plainly and obviously in sight?

to my mind the north tower is much like a dead person. this person was killed by being stabbed several times and by also being shot several times. when the coroner comes to inspect the body he said the person only died from stab wounds and claims the bullet holes are also stab wounds! people you are the coroner.

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.

there is noone in this room capable of the straight, robust, and honest debate i am looking for. even Norseman has reduced himself to name calling. i dont go to truther forums as what fun would that be? you need a disagreement to argue. and look at you, calling me "kid" as though you are my senior, as though you have deconstructed my arguments are refuted them thoroughly point by point. this forum is a joke and full of intellectual wannabees.

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.

all of these effects can be caused by bombs.

many of these effects cannot be caused by a fuel deflagration.

by your own standards -YOU HIPOCRITE - the evidence is looking you in the face.

thought experiment: go through everyone of the effects on the lis and try to explain it using only references to the official explanation. if you can do that then you are justified in maintaining your convictions. if you can do that please post it so you may convince me of their truth. if you cannot do that please do not send another post stating lots and proving nothing

just read the level of debate i up against in this forum

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?

holy mary and mother of god i am not intending to con anybody. i am asking you go to my post 288, 329, 377, pick out a premise upon which my conclusion is reached and raise some intellectual objections other than zebras and hooves!!! can you do that kid?

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

there are presumably over 15 witnesses that attest to an explosion going off in the basement BELOW them. now when they all get the same direction, i tend to believe them.

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

but i am not basing my conclusions on testimony alone am i. to say that am is being dishonest.

the speed of a raindrop is the main premise upon which i base my conclusion in post 329 that the fireball hypothesis is wrong

 

[thewholesoul]

"i have debunked the fireball hypothesis"

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

have you got wax in your ears boy? go to post 329 and raise some intellectual objections because it is on that post that i make my claim that the fireball hypothesis has been debunked

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

I will be reading the thread as I go, to get caught up... I jumped in to emphasize that the plane impacts exhibit at least 2/3 of the 'events' you listed very clearly.

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.

Associated around the time of the impact, however, not all accounts describe explosions. I included at least one account where a custodian was not aware of the events happening above him IN the basement. An explosive located within that are is going to have far reaching effects, how do you explain this?

"South tower basement, level unknown. James Barrett: didn't hear explosions, was unaware that anything was wrong.

"ABM Industries janitor James Barrett, who was on the 6 a.m. shift and cleaning a basement room a quarter-mile below where the first plane hit the North Tower, was in the dark [figuratively].
“I was in the building when both planes hit but I didn’t hear a thing,” said Barrett, who has spent 22 of his 39 years keeping the World Trade Center clean and operating smoothly.

...At the time of the disaster, more than 250 ABM employees were at work. One of these was Barrett, not far from where he remembers a terrorist bomb went off in 1993. This time, the blast was more than 200 yards overhead and he discovered the danger only by chance.

Because he didn’t have his cell phone with him, Barrett missed a frantic warning from his wife. He learned of the unfolding catastrophe only after he walked upstairs to the plaza level to get a broom and dustpan. He immediately ran into a fellow janitor who told him the towers were ablaze and it was time to flee. But before running for their lives, the two heard shouts behind a freight elevator, pried open the doors and lowered a ladder to three men [sic: there were two men in the elevator] who were up to their knees in rising water. Barrett then joined the rush for the exits as firefighters continued to pour in. Later, as Tower Two imploded with a roar and blinding cloud of smoke, dust and debris, Barrett began running to eventual safety."

www.abm.com/ilwwcm/resources/file/eb0189054765374/Alliance-911.pdf

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.

Specifically noting the bolded. It is already explained by the plane impact if it happened at the same time. These fireballs and burns took place at the time of the impacts did they not?

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)

Debris does not take horizontal turns, but it doesn't mean sound is incapable of being transmitted through materials

falling bodies is even more ridiculous. the sound came from inside the building and falling bodies impacted outside the building.

Testimony indicates that bodies made sounds that were analogically described as explosions.

unless you wish to argue that falling bodies fell down the elevator shaft (as did Norseman)

You don't see me arguing that far... Anything I refer to with 'falling bodies' referrs to witness accounts from OUTSIDE the towers. This is targeted at accounts which describe explosions from outside.

but even if you do, this line of reasoning is faces the same problem s as trhe falling steel.

Doesn't always have to be 'falling steel'. Numerous firefighters described the intense pressure exerted on the connecting bolts causing them to snap as being potential sources. The sound of 'steel' isn't limited to large pieces falling and hitting the ground.

fine i accept. it perhaps 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"

Given that the construction was roughly the same in both towers and both towers experienced the same type of impacts (perhaps differently due to where they were hit), the behavior would be expected to be similar. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the same to have happened in the north tower.

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

ALL of the accounts I provided are of the moment the plane struck the tower. I'm not assuming anything, I know that they were talking about the moment the plane struck the tower and them speaking of the immediate results of the impacts from just above the impacts to well below.

With the established time and the expected reaction of the structures, this can pretty easily be established to correlate with the planes, impacting the structure.

....

As I said... and provided witness accounts of...
The fact that witnesses felt 'like' an explosion occurred below them does not necessarily mean that the explosion is below them. Vibrations will travel throughout the structure from such an impact. Those accounts I provided are from the time the plane impacted the tower. Unlike in many cases, the comparison between the two towers IS an apples vs apples comparison.

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.

And as such you have concluded that the only reasonable source is an explosive device. Yet, is this not contradicted by the 1st account I provided in this post? Wouldn't several detonating explosives be noticed by everyone within the basements?

a falling elevator would not send me into a panic

A loud bang from it impacting the lowest level it is going to hit might... of coarse I am playing devil's advocate and speculating in this one...

 

[thewholesoul]

Some other times people heard an explosion that wasn't a bomb.

wow, is that a fact? how come i never thought of that one?

read again what i said "the only explanation for the first basement explosion is a bomb"

the first basement explosion occured somewhere between B2-3 and occured before the fireball arrived from the imapct zone.

if you disagree you can always go to post 329 and raise some intellectual objections other than stating the mundane and the obvious.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

NO your standard of evidence is the following: so eat your OWN WORDS clueless

To conclusively prove bombs? ABSO-F*CKING-LUTELY. To do anything else would be idiotic. You know we didn't rule out Alien technology either! Or how about an evil wizard from another plane of existence that was ported to the WTC on 9/11 and caused explosions. So how to we rule these out? There is no evidence to prove these things and there is evidence to prove the other possible causes.

and what sort of evidence is "not making vast assumptions", what rubbish are you talking man? imagine you're a lawyer and the judge says present your evidence clueless, and you say...the only evidence i have is not making vast assumptions!! you see how utterly ridiculous you sound?

Making assumptions as to where the elevator cars are, making assumptions as to the direction of sounds, making assumptions based soley on witness testimony which is not reliable for the accuracy you are trying to use. Rubbish indeed. That's what you are giving us, rubbish.

No Imagine going to a judge "Yes judge, I understand that there are explosion sounds in a fire and collapsing building. Yes Judge, I understand that there is evidence and proof of all of these events that cause these sounds. Yes Juedge, I understand there is no evidence to prove that the sounds were caused by bombs while there IS evidence of the other causes. But judge, it was a bomb.

Judge - 'why is it a bomb when all the other causes have been proven?"

You - 'because I said so'"

everyone makes assumptions. in relation to the injuries incurred by Felipe you assume that a fireball or jet fuel fell 90+floors passed eloevator car 50 undetected and then exploded. i assume a bomb went off in the basement.

It's an assumption based on the provable facts. We known fuel came down, we know planes hit the building, we know debris dropped down, and we have seen this very seen thing in past events such as the plane that hit the empire state building.

And who says the fuel went down unignited? And what about the air pressure created? What about the millions of other factors you are ignoring? your claims for those facts about where the cars were are based on assumptions. Just like you assume that because someone uses the term "elevator door" that it automatically means the elevator car.

We can see the tell tale signs of fire. Do we see any tell tale signs of bombs? NO. Bombs don't cause balls of fire or fire period. And just look at the bigger picture. Setting off bombs to go off at the exact moment a plane hits the building is not only impossible, it's completely pointless and stupid. You don't even need to argue the technicalities based on the issues you can't figure out. You just need to ask yourself why. And then you can easily see how stupid and idiotic the bomb claim is.

we are ALL making claims. the difference is i can back mine up with reason and testimony.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now THAT was funny!!!!

yes i can. i can even do better and demonstrate through deductive logic that your claims and your assumptions are false and impossible. so like i said, you go down that list and explain to everyone how a plane impact can explain all the phenomena that occured in the basement.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope, I stand corrected, that was even funnier. And it HAS been explained, you just keep ignoring it and replacing it with your cute little bomb claim and wonder why you get laughed at. yet you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF BOMBS.

my standard of evidence is the same as what your standard used to be before it morphed into "not making vast assumptions". but most embarressing of all is that i even predicted you would change your standard of evidence

It never morphed, you just keep having to change your tactics when people point out your logical faults, or simply lack of logic. YOU keep changing it. You keep running in circles because you know you can't back up your little bomb claim and you yourself know it's the most idiotic notion.

do you have any intellectual integrity? can you not admit when you're wrong?

I admit when I am wrong all the time. This is far from one of them. Can you admit when you are wrong? Do you have any intellectual integrity? Obviously the answer is no, because you have so far shown nothing but dishonesty and trying to use symantics to argue for something you have no evidence of other than "The sounds of explosions can only mean bombs".

wrong. i accept the fact that a fireball descended the shaft because it is said in Arturo Griffiths testimony and many others. so it actually happned.
what i argue is that the damage done in the basement before a fireball arrived could have been caused by a fireball - this is a friggin no brainer!!

Damage done before the fireball? Oh good lord...

bla bla bla: you have my posts why dont present my statements and criticize them point by point.

WTF do you think we have been doing?!?!?!?! Go READ!

in post 377 there are solid facts, things that happened e.g. someones legs being chopped off, that cannot be explained by a fule deflagration but can be explained by a bomb. what can you not accept what is plainly and obviously in sight?

The basis of your conclusions though are simply vast assumptions. Your evidence is lack of evidence. No, I cannot accept your opinion based conclusion. And your conclusion leaves far more holes than what you are trying to dismiss.

to my mind the north tower is much like a dead person. this person was killed by being stabbed several times and by also being shot several times. when the coroner comes to inspect the body he said the person only died from stab wounds and claims the bullet holes are also stab wounds! people you are the coroner.

Save your crazy for someone else, I don't have time.

there is noone in this room capable of the straight, robust, and honest debate i am looking for. even Norseman has reduced himself to name calling. i dont go to truther forums as what fun would that be? you need a disagreement to argue. and look at you, calling me "kid" as though you are my senior, as though you have deconstructed my arguments are refuted them thoroughly point by point. this forum is a joke and full of intellectual wannabees.

You mean there is no one agreeing with your utter nonsense. And all you do is say "I have proven this and I have proven that" when you haven't. So YOU have reduced this thread beyond the point of reason when those are simply your responses. We can't help that you live in denial. I call you KID because you act like one and you show no intellectual honesty. You are trying to use little tricks to convince people of your opinion and make it look like facts. But the people here have proven you wrong and you simply can't handle it. So you act like a little child, and thus I treat you like one.

Keep pretending you are intellectually superior kid. I am sure you might be the king braniac on the conspiracy forums full of drop out druggies, but you aren't here.

all of these effects can be caused by bombs.

AND they can be caused by magic, AND they can be caused by alien technology. AND they can be caused by wizard teleported here from another time. Your conclusion is based on your imagination and nothing more. You have PROVE they were bombs.

So let's see, you have two options. One is your little bombs. The other are fire, and debris, etc form the fire/impact. Option one, we have no proof of what so ever, option two we have mountains of proof of. So, which could it be...which could it be....

many of these effects cannot be caused by a fuel deflagration.

But they can be indirectly. A burn wound can't be caused by someones fist. But someone can use their fist to punch someone into a fire.

by your own standards -YOU HIPOCRITE - the evidence is looking you in the face.

Oh good god, drop the drama. It's not evidence, it's conjecture.

thought experiment: go through everyone of the effects on the lis and try to explain it using only references to the official explanation. if you can do that then you are justified in maintaining your convictions. if you can do that please post it so you may convince me of their truth. if you cannot do that please do not send another post stating lots and proving nothing

There is your logical fallacy right there. In other words you want people who disagree with you to limit their resources so as to have less a chance to disprove your claims. But to humor us, please provide a link to this official explanation for us.

I don't want to convince you of the truth. You have no desire for any kind of truth. You have proven that by your conclusion of bombs based on things like explosion sounds. Right there alone you get put in the Woo category and lose all respect from anyone.

And maybe it's time YOU stop sending posts stating lots and proving nothing.

just read the level of debate i up against in this forum

Well, when you can get up to that level, you let us know kid.

holy mary and mother of god i am not intending to con anybody. i am asking you go to my post 288, 329, 377, pick out a premise upon which my conclusion is reached and raise some intellectual objections other than zebras and hooves!!! can you do that kid?

This is what we HAVE been doing. Hello?!?!?!?!

Your only proof of bombs is that the effects of the collapsing building and fires can also be caused by bombs and your inability to figure out how the events happened because you are making big assumptions based only on some eyewitness testimony. Hello?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

wow, is that a fact? how come i never thought of that one?

read again what i said "the only explanation for the first basement explosion is a bomb"

the first basement explosion occured somewhere between B2-3 and occured before the fireball arrived from the imapct zone.

if you disagree you can always go to post 329 and raise some intellectual objections other than stating the mundane and the obvious.

ONCE AGAIN.

This is based on your assumption that because he felt the explosion came from below, that it was actually below him. This is a common twoofer tactic of trying to exploit eyewitness testimony and manipulate it. And there are plenty of other assumptions like this that you make and people keep pointing them out. yet like now, you continue PRETENDING that no one has addressed them. So while in your little world you are pretending you are right, the rest of us live in reality and we aren't in your imagination. Or like your assumption that everything came down the elevator shafts in the same speed and the same manner. Or ignoring the many other elevator shafts. We could go on and on.

 

[bio]

The debunkers here do not reject any explosions in the basement. The question is, where did the explosions happen and how?

Some ideas / how:
-shaft 50 was not the connection to impact zone above.
-we must focus on shaft 5 and 6. So debris could fall down there and exploded in the basement.

.............../ where:
what do we know about shaft 5, 6?
"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)

I think this is an important information of NIST: The cars were still there, they did not explode. The cars were not destroyed into dust and debris, but the cars were burned.

Is the question "Where were the elevator cars 5,6 parked? so important, if ...

How is it possible for exploding gasses to blow open ONLY the outer doors of an elevator without having to blast through an elevator car as well? Hmmm, let's dwell on that for a few minutes more.
Again, premiss is, 'how is it possible for an explosion to penetrate half the material being suggested'.

..., if the exploding gasses did not (according to NIST) blast through the car and destroy it?

facts:

(4a) Standing in front of the freight elevator on B1 Felipe David recalls:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb
A free-falling elevator car is audibly detectable. Felipe however did not hear the car falling towards him. That means that the cables were not cut yet from the impact of flight 11 and that car 50 was above him.

(4b) Walking beside freight elevator Phillip Morelli B4 recalls: http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

We know that elevator car 50 did free fall down the freight elevator shaft so it seems very likely that Morelli’s assumption was correct. Given that the first explosion was heard below David and above Morelli and also given the behaviour of the building following the explosion in both David’s and Morelli’s testimony it seems reasonable to assume that they were in fact describing the same explosion.

Assuming then that it was the same explosion we know that car 50 was above David because Morelli heard the freight car falling for some time after the explosion had occured. Now the obvious reason David did not notice or report hearing a freight car falling after the explosion is because he was lying on the floor in extreme pain thinking he was going to die.

(4c) Because the occupants of car 50 did not receive burn injuries from intense heat it seems highly likely that car 50 was some distance above David and the explosion from below which produced the intense heat that burnt David.

(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. peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Fireball In Basement Debunked

William Rodriguez: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

William was right and the following explains why.

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

Therefore, whatever caused the explosion below Felipe David could not possibly have been caused by jet fuel (or descending fireball).

(1a) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160)

(1b) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (2.4)

(1c) http://911stories.googlepages.com/de...rsioninthetowe

(2a) “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” http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...6/lklw.00.html

(2b) “The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors” http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/...riffiths_x.htm

(2c) Its hard to know exactly how long it took car 50 to reach B1. From Griffiths testimony we learn that the elevator ascended for 5-7 seconds. But let us only use the most generous estimation, that being 7 seconds. Freight elevators in the twin towers were gearless traction machines and could reach speeds of roughly 10 m/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevato...ist_mechanisms car 50 then ascended 7 seconds at 10m/s thus it ascended approx 70m. Each floor is approx. 3.8m so 70m = approx. 18 floors. From Griffith’s testimony we learn that the elevator fell at least 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught. So that fits in nicely.

To my mind, car 50 ascended 18 floors. when the cables were cut it then free falled 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught and the car skidded a further 2-3 floors before terminating just below B1. So I would estimate that it took car 50 no more than 10 seconds to reach B1. I welcome anyone with precise calculations based on the information we already possess.

(3) Flight AA 11 impacted from 93rd to 98th floor. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160) 93 floors = 388m . Jet fuel falls 9.1m/s http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6446.Ph.r.html 388/9.1 = 43 seconds. Taking overpressure into consideration = 30 seconds.

(4a) Standing in front of the freight elevator on B1 Felipe David recalls:

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. I sat there for a couple of seconds on the floor and felt like I was going to die, saying to myself 'God, please give me strength

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts,lobb
A free-falling elevator car is audibly detectable. Felipe however did not hear the car falling towards him. That means that the cables were not cut yet from the impact of flight 11 and that car 50 was above him.

(4b) Walking beside freight elevator Phillip Morelli B4 recalls:

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/in...ccounts,lobb

We know that elevator car 50 did free fall down the freight elevator shaft so it seems very likely that Morelli’s assumption was correct. Given that the first explosion was heard below David and above Morelli and also given the behaviour of the building following the explosion in both David’s and Morelli’s testimony it seems reasonable to assume that they were in fact describing the same explosion.

Assuming then that it was the same explosion we know that car 50 was above David because Morelli heard the freight car falling for some time after the explosion had occured. Now the obvious reason David did not notice or report hearing a freight car falling after the explosion is because he was lying on the floor in extreme pain thinking he was going to die.

(4c) Because the occupants of car 50 did not receive burn injuries from intense heat it seems highly likely that car 50 was some distance above David who did recieve burn injuries from an explosion he experienced below him.

[Conclusion]
According to the above argument the official fireball explanation and the unofficial JREF unignited jet fuel explanation must be rejected because they are simply NOT POSSIBLE because the jet fuel cannot physically descend the 90+ floors quick enough to cause an explosion below car 50 before it reaches B1. This is essentially the problem implicit in William Rodriguez's quotation above. The falling debris explanation can also be dismissed for the simple reason that falling debirs does not burn peoples skin. so lets see it again:

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

Therefore, whatever caused the explosion below Felipe David could not possibly have been caused by jet fuel (or descending fireball).

if anyone in this forum believes they can refute this argument please address the premises upon which the conclusion logically follows. That is how debate works.

Bombs in the basment may be implausible to many in this room, but i will take implausible over impossible every single time. And so should any RATIONAL human being.

peace

 

[applecorped]

I guess our irrational then.

 

[Quad4_72]

Too bad Rodriguez is a LIAR:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

 

[stateofgrace]

How would bombs in the basement cause each tower to collapse from the top down?

 

[Brainster]

You might want to take it up with Willie Rodriguez. On the one-year anniversary of the attacks, W-Rod told CNN:

And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. And I came back running into the building. And the only person that I found there was Officer David Lim. And the first thing that he told me was, Willie (ph), do you have the key. Meaning if I had the master key to the building, which I have and I still have. It's over here. This is the key that opened all the doors on the staircase. It's called a T2 (ph) key. And he said let's go.

He told NIST:

The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How would bombs in the basement cause each tower to collapse from the top down?

Don't ya get it!? It was an UNconventional demolition! Everybody knows that! [/sarc]
yeah it's funny... particularly since the base is the worst possible place for anyone intent on destroying the towers, because the core has much sturdier bracing in the basement levels. This arguement has so many things wrong with logic I'm stumped as to why in blue hell any one would detonate anything in that area in the first place if it were even true.

You might want to take it up with Willie Rodriguez. On the one-year anniversary of the attacks, W-Rod told CNN:



He told NIST:

The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.

Emphasis mine

Speaking of which... has anybody seen blast caps anywhere on ground zero in the last 7 years? Physical remains of explosive would equate to the holy grail for the TM

 

[RedIbis]

You might want to take it up with Willie Rodriguez. On the one-year anniversary of the attacks, W-Rod told CNN:



He told NIST:

Obviously, something burned Felipe David. Never does Rodriguez say it was jet fuel. That's a conclusion Gravy and others have reached.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1

Huh?????????

Care to elaborate on that?

 

[pomeroo]

William Rodriguez: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

William was right and the following explains why.

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

Therefore, whatever caused the explosion below Felipe David could not possibly have been caused by jet fuel (or descending fireball).

(1a) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160)

(1b) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (2.4)

(1c) http://911stories.googlepages.com/de...rsioninthetowe

(2a) “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” http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...6/lklw.00.html

(2b) “The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors” http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/...riffiths_x.htm

(2c) Its hard to know exactly how long it took car 50 to reach B1. From Griffiths testimony we learn that the elevator ascended for 5-7 seconds. But let us only use the most generous estimation, that being 7 seconds. Freight elevators in the twin towers were gearless traction machines and could reach speeds of roughly 10 m/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevato...ist_mechanisms car 50 then ascended 7 seconds at 10m/s thus it ascended approx 70m. Each floor is approx. 3.8m so 70m = approx. 18 floors. From Griffith’s testimony we learn that the elevator fell at least 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught. So that fits in nicely.

To my mind, car 50 ascended 18 floors. when the cables were cut it then free falled 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught and the car skidded a further 2-3 floors before terminating just below B1. So I would estimate that it took car 50 no more than 10 seconds to reach B1. I welcome anyone with precise calculations based on the information we already possess.

(3) Flight AA 11 impacted from 93rd to 98th floor. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160) 93 floors = 388m . Jet fuel falls 9.1m/s http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6446.Ph.r.html 388/9.1 = 43 seconds. Taking overpressure into consideration = 30 seconds.

(4a) Standing in front of the freight elevator on B1 Felipe David recalls:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts,lobb
A free-falling elevator car is audibly detectable. Felipe however did not hear the car falling towards him. That means that the cables were not cut yet from the impact of flight 11 and that car 50 was above him.

(4b) Walking beside freight elevator Phillip Morelli B4 recalls:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts,lobb

We know that elevator car 50 did free fall down the freight elevator shaft so it seems very likely that Morelli’s assumption was correct. Given that the first explosion was heard below David and above Morelli and also given the behaviour of the building following the explosion in both David’s and Morelli’s testimony it seems reasonable to assume that they were in fact describing the same explosion.

Assuming then that it was the same explosion we know that car 50 was above David because Morelli heard the freight car falling for some time after the explosion had occured. Now the obvious reason David did not notice or report hearing a freight car falling after the explosion is because he was lying on the floor in extreme pain thinking he was going to die.

(4c) Because the occupants of car 50 did not receive burn injuries from intense heat it seems highly likely that car 50 was some distance above David who did recieve burn injuries from an explosion he experienced below him.

[Conclusion]
According to the above argument the official fireball explanation and the unofficial JREF unignited jet fuel explanation must be rejected because they are simply NOT POSSIBLE because the jet fuel cannot physically descend the 90+ floors quick enough to cause an explosion below car 50 before it reaches B1. This is essentially the problem implicit in William Rodriguez's quotation above. The falling debris explanation can also be dismissed for the simple reason that falling debirs does not burn peoples skin. so lets see it again:

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

Therefore, whatever caused the explosion below Felipe David could not possibly have been caused by jet fuel (or descending fireball).

if anyone in this forum believes they can refute this argument please address the premises upon which the conclusion logically follows. That is how debate works.

Bombs in the basment may be implausible to many in this room, but i will take implausible over impossible every single time. And so should any RATIONAL human being.

peace

Why do you start new threads to continue the exhausted arguments contained in dozens of old threads? Do you realize that it is possible to check the archives here?

 

[TexasJack]

Seriously, this has been discussed and refuted before. Don't you have anything new?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Seriously, this has been discussed and refuted before. Don't you have anything new?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099

Yeah, he is claiming that it took 30 seconds for the jet fuel to fall down the elevator shaft.

That is a new level of stupidity not seen before.