Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[Jonnyclueless]

"here is my argument: the fireball explanation or the unignited jet fuel exploding explantion are both IMPOSSIBLE and thus cannot account for the first explosion experienced in the basement of the north tower. Premise#3 states: Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1. the 30 secs is an approximation but the point is that it could not have possibly reached let alone pass the falling elevator car 50 before it came to a hault at B1."

Base3d on vastly incorrect premises that you simply made up. Unfortunately for you kid, science doesn't revolve around the stuff you make up and pretend to be facts.

YOU need to prove an alternative of what caused the fireballs below.

 

[Dave Rogers]

TWS, your premise 3 is based on the assumption that jet fuel falling down a shaft will fall at no more than 9.1m/s, and this is in turn based on the observation that raindrops fall at that speed. You have done nothing to justify your assumption that the behaviour of jet fuel in the WTC was the same as that of raindrops; you've simply advanced an argument from incredulity as a fallacious refutation of the possibility that the behaviour could be any different. Therefore, your claim that the jet fuel took 30 seconds to fall the required distance is unproven, and your claim that the fireballs could not have been caused by jet fuel is also unproven.

I apologise, if an apology is warranted, for using technical jargon like "cross-sectional area" and "air resistance", but if you have trouble understanding this sort of language, how can you have any hope of understanding the phenomena you're talking about?

Dave

 

[thewholesoul]

Base3d on vastly incorrect premises that you simply made up.

vastly incorrect why?

Unfortunately for you kid, science doesn't revolve around the stuff you make up and pretend to be facts.

why cant you address the four premises?

YOU need to prove an alternative of what caused the fireballs below.

post# 377 in this thread. that was the thread that i forced you to change your own definition of proof. remember...kid?

that is why i dont respond to you becuase ALL you can do is shoot your mouth off.

peace.

 

[Dave Rogers]

TWS, either present your proof that jet fuel in a shaft has the same terminal velocity as raindrops, or admit that your claim is unfounded.

Dave

 

[thewholesoul]

TWS, your premise 3 is based on the assumption that jet fuel falling down a shaft will fall at no more than 9.1m/s,

correction, jet fuel in droplet form.

and this is in turn based on the observation that raindrops fall at that speed.

correct.

You have done nothing to justify your assumption that the behaviour of jet fuel in the WTC was the same as that of raindrops;

you have yet to explain any sound reason why there would be any significant difference?

you've simply advanced an argument from incredulity as a fallacious refutation of the possibility that the behaviour could be any different.

Both myself Norseman and Gravy all advance the same argument. and what may i ask are you doing? your telling me i need to prove a drop of jet fuel falls at the same speed as a drop of water. this is hardly rocket science.

Therefore, your claim that the jet fuel took 30 seconds to fall the required distance is unproven,

so why i ask the anti-truthers to prove how falling jet fuel can explode after descending 93 floors i am told dont be silly - but now your telling me that i must prove a scientiifcally meritless proposition that a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same speed as a droplet of water!

but for the sake of argument let us say it falls quicker - how much quicker? are we talking 20 seconds to reach the basement? even 10 seconds is TOO SLOW because the explosion was below car 50. in fact for the jet fuel to reach the basement before car 50 it had to have occured several seconds before Philip Morelli heard the elevator car falling. Felipe David heard the explosion first not a falling elevator.

and your claim that the fireballs could not have been caused by jet fuel is also unproven.

jet fuel can produce fireballs. so can explosives. my argument has four simple lines. you are UNABLE to refute ANY of them. the conclusion that follows these 4 premises is that the first explosion in the basement of the north tower and witnessed by numerous individuals can not POSSIBLY be caused by a fireball descending 93 floors, or unignited jet fuel exploding after 93 floors. that is a myth that you have yet to prove.


i posted a link to the madrid bombing. the loud noise, the shaking of the ground, the people running and screaming, the thick white smoke, and the fireballs can ALL be produced by a bomb or an explosive device. ALL of these characteristic were IN FACT described by numerous indiivudals in the basement of the nroth tower. some even said that the first explosion reminded them of the 1993 truck bomb!! how obvious does it need to get for you people.

in post 377 i outline numerous events that cannot be produced by a deflgration for the simple reason it does not possess the power. of course these events can be produced by explosives.

I apologise, if an apology is warranted, for using technical jargon like "cross-sectional area" and "air resistance", but if you have trouble understanding this sort of language, how can you have any hope of understanding the phenomena you're talking about?

because we are talking about a drop of liquid fall through the air. this is not rocket science. and if i conducted a test and proved that a drop of kerosene falls at the same speed as a drop of water...would you concede and do the rational thing and accept teh conclusion? or would you continue not to believe without any sound reason?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

TWS, either present your proof that jet fuel in a shaft has the same terminal velocity as raindrops, or admit that your claim is unfounded.

Dave

so you can go around spouting as FACT that unignited jet fuel descended 93 floors which then expLoded from a speculative and unknown ignition source without PROOF.

you can go around stating a s FACT that once collapse intiation began global collaspe then ensued without PROOF much less an explanation for the essential freefall.

but i have to prove that a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same speed as a droplet of water!

give me a BIG FAT break.

at least throw me some reasons why such a scientifically meritless experiment is worthwhile? why do think the terminal velocity of LIQUID fuel will be significantly greater than LIQUID water? does it contain some unknown properties, perhaps a jet propulsion system?

you already tried suggesting that the jet fuel formed litre sized droplets, pooled and streamed continuously down the shaft. i notice you have distance yourself from this proposal.

how much faster would you expect the droplets of jet fuel to fall - twice as fast, 10 times as fast, if not roughly the same?

i have a great i dea for my next thesis Dave. i pose the question does a droplet of water, kerosene, milk, cooking oil, blood, or salt water, fall at the same time? you can even give it a peer review before its publication in the Journal of the Scientifically Meritless Discoveries.

peace

 

[Dave Rogers]

you have yet to explain any sound reason why there would be any significant difference?

That's not the way it works. You have claimed that the speed must be the same, and advanced no evidence. Without evidence, your claim is unproven. And I've advanced perfectly sound reasons why there might be a significant difference. The fact that you choose to disbelieve them doesn't invalidate them.

but now your telling me that i must prove a scientifically meritless proposition that a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same speed as a droplet of water!

This is where you're starting to look a little silly. The "scientifically meritless proposition that a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same speed as a droplet of water" is your claim, as it is the basis of your 30 seconds figure. If you believe it to be meritless, then you are in effect claiming that your own reasoning is meritless. Personally, I'd tend to agree with you on that.

but for the sake of argument let us say it falls quicker - how much quicker? are we talking 20 seconds to reach the basement? even 10 seconds is TOO SLOW because the explosion was below car 50.

Your argument now seems to be that you can make up numbers that disagree with the official story, therefore it must be wrong. No need to comment on that.

jet fuel can produce fireballs. so can explosives. my argument has four simple lines. you are UNABLE to refute ANY of them.

Point 3 is refuted unless you can prove that the jet fuel fell down the lift shaft at 9.1m/s, which you have so far failed to do.

and if i conducted a test and proved that a drop of kerosene falls at the same speed as a drop of water...would you concede and do the rational thing and accept teh conclusion? or would you continue not to believe without any sound reason?

False dilemma, as in this hypothetical scenario you wouldn't have met the burden of proof required. Your claim would then rest on two assumptions: (1) that the fuel fell in droplets of the size used in your experiment; so far you have only advanced an argument from incredulity in support of any claim of that sort; and (2) that the fuel was not accelerated down the shaft by a pressure wave resulting from the fuel deflagration. You've taken on a far greater burden of proof than you seem to realise.

Incidentally, can you summarise your evidence that the fall of car 50 took 10 seconds? I'd like to examine that side of your argument in a little more detail too.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

The whole jist of TWS arguments in every single thread he posts in are as follows.

1. NIST did not explicitly reproduce every action that happened in the Towers collapses, by experimentation, therefore they are unscientific and the theory is not proved.

2. He makes up premises based on assumptions, cherry picked witness testimonies and sometimes bare faced lies that he has little or no evidence for and zero proof.

3. He claims that if you cannot refute any of his premises then the official narrative of what happened on that day is impossible and the only other explanation is that bombs blew up in the WTC. (Bombs which in the case of the Twin Towers served absolutely no purpose at all)

4. When, in fact, you refute any of his premises he ignores you, claims you have not and carries on.

This is an example of his ridiculous arguements.

so you can go around spouting as FACT that unignited jet fuel descended 93 floors which then expLoded from a speculative and unknown ignition source without PROOF.

Unignited jet fuel did in fact fall down the elevator shafts - FACT
If you have that much fuel and that much air, you will at some point have an explosive atmsophere - FACT
There were literally thousands of sources for ignition of the explosive atmosphere - FACT

What proof is needed??

This is a waste of time, his lack of logical and critical thinking skills are astounding. This is one of those threads where the lurkers can see all they need to see and should it be left to die slowly. TWS will never ever change his mind about what happened that day. He is blinded by hatred and hampered by a lack of intelligence and a weakness in english which allows him to make incorrect claims from witness statements which do not mean what he thinks they do.

 

[TexasJack]

TWS, like Dabjulah, need to read this study, it's about them.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

 

[Jonnyclueless]

vastly incorrect why?

Your "presmise" is that it couldnt have been from fuel and the explosion pushing it down the elevator shafts because of (and I quote) Rain drops in Brazil. How stupid are you? That's not a premise, that's simple idiocy. I mean that's the most laughable thing anyone has ever said here.

why cant you address the four premises?

Well adide from the fact that everyone here HAS addressed your 4 little presmises, they aren't even presmises. They are things you simply made up. You are unable to actually show them to be real premises. And you cannot because the simply aren't. No matter how much you want them to be. And many people here have shown you why. Yet all you do i sit here and pretend they are and that no one has addressed them. It's this kind of behavior that makes you a nutjob.

post# 377 in this thread. that was the thread that i forced you to change your own definition of proof. remember...kid?

No one changed a definition of proof kid. Go back and re-read the thread. You might need to a couple times. You didn't force anyone to do anything. you simply made up some untrue facts and then pretended they were real. It doesn't work that way in science kid.

that is why i dont respond to you becuase ALL you can do is shoot your mouth off.

Yes, we shoot our mouths off because you make stuff up. You don't respond to me because you know what I am saying is true. You know you don't have a leg to stand on and that all you are doing is making stuff up (like rain drops in brazil proving how fast a fireball from an explosion can travel!).

Kid, stop trying to save face. you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole here. No raindrops in Brazil are gonna help you here. The bottom line is that you have no evidence what so ever of any explosives in the basement. And more importantly, the whole idea of them being needed is so uterly idiotic that it just makes your claims that much more laughable. The notion that some people planted explosives in the basement that could not possibly serve to help in the collapse of the building what so ever. Or that they would time explosives to go off just as the planes hit the buildings and serve no possible function other than to give away this never before seen kind of diabolical plot is just laughable.

Back to imagination land kiddo.

 

[Norseman]

i posted a link to the madrid bombing. the loud noise, the shaking of the ground, the people running and screaming, the thick white smoke, and the fireballs can ALL be produced by a bomb or an explosive device. ALL of these characteristic were IN FACT described by numerous indiivudals in the basement of the nroth tower. some even said that the first explosion reminded them of the 1993 truck bomb!! how obvious does it need to get for you people.

Non of the the things you are listing here is inconsistent with aircraft impact and jet fuel deflagration on the lower levels of WTC 1. In fact they are fully consistent with aircraft impact and jet fuel fireballs traveling down the elevator shafts. The fact is that survivors on all levels of the tower described the same effects.

There is a very significant difference between the injuries caused by the Madrid bombs and the injuries caused by the aircraft impact in WTC 1 and WTC 2. The significant difference is the lack of primary blast injuries in the later case. Primary blast injuries are injuries like ruptured eardrums and blast lung.

Here is a survey of injury types reported by five Manhattan hospitals:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/7/835
Look at Table 1 down on the page.

Here are two detailed abstracts on injuries reported in connection with the Madrid bombings.
Injury patterns from major urban terrorist bombings in trains: the Madrid experience.

Casualties treated at the closest hospital in the Madrid, March 11, terrorist bombings.

Note the large numbers of reported cases of ear drum rupture (Tympanic perforation) and blast lung among the Madrid victims. And the total lack thereof among the WTC victims.

This is not surprising at all since jet fuel deflagration does not cause this type of injuries. And as reported in "Blast Injuries: Preparing For The Inevitable":

Primary blast injuries are caused only by high explosives
and are due to the direct effects of the blast wave on the
human body. (Since low-order explosives do not form a
supersonic blast wave, they cannot cause primary blast
injury. This is the sole clinical difference between wounds
caused by a low-order explosive and a high-order explosive.)

Jet fuel deflagration is regarded as a low order explosive.

Note also that only first- and second-degree burns were reported among the survivors of the Madrid bombings. While many of the WTC survivors suffered severe third-degree burns on large parts of their bodies from the jet fuel fires, needing months of hospitalization and skin grafts to recover. Not surprising either since high explosives as used in Madrid only generate a short flash. While deflagration of a jet fuel cloud will last several seconds.

Your use of the Madrid train bombings as an example does not help your case at all thewholesoul. Quiet the contrary.

 

[Norseman]

How fast did the fireballs reach the basement of WTC 1

The fact is that the elapsed time between aircraft impact and the jet fuel fireballs arrival in the Lobby and basement levels of WTC 1 is an unknown factor.

In my OP in this thread I attempted to quantify that factor in the following way:

Regarding the time for the fireballs to reach the bottom of the shafts witness Edward McCabe gives the following account:

I was in the refrigeration plant in tower 1 sub basement 4.I was passing through when I felt a slight shifting of the building.I froze right where I stood and listened....nothing.. about 30 seconds past and to my left about 30 feet from me was a stairway leading up to a door. this door explodes off its hinges and white smoke came into the plant.

According to Wikipedia large raindrops impacts ground with a speed of 9 m/s. This gives a fall time for a fuel drop from the impact area to the bottom of the shafts of about 40 seconds. But the time would very likely be somewhat shorter due to down draught from falling elevators and expanding fire-gasses. So the timing of Edward McCabe looks very reasonable.

But after exchanging a few posts with R.Mackey I note that I concluded in post #5 the following:

If I understand you correctly, some amount of droplets should be picked up by the shaft sides on the way down. Yes, that should definitely be a limiting factor. Considering this it seems likely that no liquid jet fuel traveled all the way to the bottom, just the gasses. Therefore the fall rate of liquid droplets would possibly not be an reliable indicator to time the fireball with. Then we would have to consider how fast the fire gasses could expand downward in the shafts. But as you say, I guess we would need an experiment or an elaborate simulation to give us any exact answers on this.

My bolding.

The latest debate in this thread regarding thewholesouls' 30 second claim has prompted me to revisit my attempt to time the fireballs from my OP. In this regard a reading of NIST NCSTAR 1-5A chapter 6.5 FIRE BEHAVIOR IN THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE AIRCRAFT IMPACT is quiet useful.

The aircraft impacted WTC 1 with a speed of around 200 m/s. On impact the fuel tanks were ruptured and most of the fuel was aerosolized into a cloud of tiny droplets that were ignited. The deflagration generated an overpressure that might have been as high as 5 psi at peak. The pressure forced unburned fuel outside WTC 1, forming the spectacular fireballs. And likewise it would force burning jet fuel aerosol down the elevator shafts. The positive pressure phase lasted about 30 seconds from aircraft impact.

Unignited, I am quiet certain that the tiny fuel aerosol droplets would use an even longer time time to rain down the elevator shafts than what I suggested in the OP. More comparable to a drizzle.

In the paper "A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics" it was estimated that the fireball outside WTC 2 expanded with a velocity of 28 m/s.

If we use that figure on the case of the elevator shafts in WTC 1 we get a time of nearly 13 seconds. But then we have to factor in that the elevator shafts was a confined space compared to the open air outside the towers. So we can not use the 28 m/s directly. But this suggest that the time required was much shorter than what my first attempt in the OP indicated.

I would say that we safely can ignore any discussion of fuel droplet aerodynamics and breakup in the elevator shafts. The fuel was already aerosolized by the impact when it entered the elevator shafts. And the driving force was overpressure generated inside the fireball on the impact floors and overpressure generated by continued burning inside the elevator shafts.

Andy Macabe's 30 second claim is not a reliable indicator at all. What he felt like 30 seconds could just as well have been 15 seconds.

We might a least get a lower limit by the following witness accounts:

She had been standing outside the north tower next to a man she knew, waiting for a bus, when she heard a loud crash above. In an effort to protect them from falling debris, a security guard herded everyone inside the tower's lobby. Suddenly, she told Ronnie, something bright and hot enveloped her, a vapour maybe. She thought it could have dropped down the elevator shaft. She was worried about the man who'd been next to her. Surely he was dead, she feared.

Source

And this:

To escape the falling debris, he turned around and was inside a revolving door when he noticed the lobby fill with a yellowish haze. He now suspects that may have been jet fuel exploding out of the elevator shaft. Then he heard a loud boom and saw a fireball coming toward him. The next thing he remembers is being thrown clear of the building and being on fire.

Source

Using a 10 second fall time for heavy debris and adding time to get into the lobby we get something like around 15 seconds.

As I said we do not know the exact time. Something the thewholesoul should keep in mind.

 

[thewholesoul]

That's not the way it works. You have claimed that the speed must be the same, and advanced no evidence. Without evidence, your claim is unproven. And I've advanced perfectly sound reasons why there might be a significant difference. The fact that you choose to disbelieve them doesn't invalidate them.

what evidence do you have a droplet of jet fuel falls faster? the reasons you have advanced (i.e. jet fuel pooled and streamed continuously down the shaft) violated common sense.

This is where you're starting to look a little silly. The "scientifically meritless proposition that a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same speed as a droplet of water" is your claim, as it is the basis of your 30 seconds figure. If you believe it to be meritless, then you are in effect claiming that your own reasoning is meritless. Personally, I'd tend to agree with you on that.

ouch.

Your argument now seems to be that you can make up numbers that disagree with the official story, therefore it must be wrong. No need to comment on that.

go read my argument.

Point 3 is refuted unless you can prove that the jet fuel fell down the lift shaft at 9.1m/s, which you have so far failed to do.

it hasnt been refuted. all you have demonstrated is that i have not proven the assumption a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same speed as a droplet of water. you have not provided any reasons why there would be a significant difference. you assume that the jet fuel droplet will fall faster but when i ask a straightforward question you avoid a straight forward answer. i think lurkers can judge for themselves how weak your argument is.

False dilemma, as in this hypothetical scenario you wouldn't have met the burden of proof required. Your claim would then rest on two assumptions: (1) that the fuel fell in droplets of the size used in your experiment; so far you have only advanced an argument from incredulity in support of any claim of that sort; and (2) that the fuel was not accelerated down the shaft by a pressure wave resulting from the fuel deflagration. You've taken on a far greater burden of proof than you seem to realise.

is that a fact. we know the explosion in basement occured before car 50 reached B1. the burden of proof is on you to explain how the jet fuel could reach and pass car 50 and then ignite in the basement BEFORE car 50 came to a hault. the burden of proof is on you to PROVE this ridiculous hypothesis.

the official hypothesis by NIST was that a fireball came down the shaft. when that hypothesis failed to pass the smell test, the wise men at JREFers turn to the unignited jet fuel hypothesis.

Incidentally, can you summarise your evidence that the fall of car 50 took 10 seconds? I'd like to examine that side of your argument in a little more detail too.

my argument is outlined in post 430

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

The whole jist of TWS arguments in every single thread he posts in are as follows.

so instead of tackling my argument you rather deconstruct my style of argumentation. is there no limit to your nitpicking?

1. NIST did not explicitly reproduce every action that happened in the Towers collapses, by experimentation, therefore they are unscientific and the theory is not proved.

correct

2. He makes up premises based on assumptions, cherry picked witness testimonies and sometimes bare faced lies that he has little or no evidence for and zero proof.

incorrect. go read my argument at post 430

3. He claims that if you cannot refute any of his premises then the official narrative of what happened on that day is impossible and the only other explanation is that bombs blew up in the WTC. (Bombs which in the case of the Twin Towers served absolutely no purpose at all)

correct. go refute post 430 and 377.

4. When, in fact, you refute any of his premises he ignores you, claims you have not and carries on.

incorrect.

Unignited jet fuel did in fact fall down the elevator shafts - FACT If you have that much fuel and that much air, you will at some point have an explosive atmsophere - FACT There were literally thousands of sources for ignition of the explosive atmosphere - FACT

What proof is needed??

so i have to prove through experimentation that a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same time as a droplet of water but you do not have to prove through experimentation, a far more outlandish claim, that jet fuel can fall 93 floors in less than 10seconds and then deflagrate? i just love your double standards

This is a waste of time, his lack of logical and critical thinking skills are astounding. This is one of those threads where the lurkers can see all they need to see and should it be left to die slowly. TWS will never ever change his mind about what happened that day. He is blinded by hatred and hampered by a lack of intelligence and a weakness in english which allows him to make incorrect claims from witness statements which do not mean what he thinks they do.

you are the only angry little man here evident once again by your inability to contain your insulting tongue. if you had any intelligence you would address arguments 377 and 430. until you do i will put you on ignore

 

[thewholesoul]

Non of the the things you are listing here is inconsistent with aircraft impact and jet fuel deflagration on the lower levels of WTC 1. In fact they are fully consistent with aircraft impact and jet fuel fireballs traveling down the elevator shafts. The fact is that survivors on all levels of the tower described the same effects.

There is a very significant difference between the injuries caused by the Madrid bombs and the injuries caused by the aircraft impact in WTC 1 and WTC 2. The significant difference is the lack of primary blast injuries in the later case. Primary blast injuries are injuries like ruptured eardrums and blast lung.

Here is a survey of injury types reported by five Manhattan hospitals:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/7/835
Look at Table 1 down on the page.

Here are two detailed abstracts on injuries reported in connection with the Madrid bombings.
Injury patterns from major urban terrorist bombings in trains: the Madrid experience.

Casualties treated at the closest hospital in the Madrid, March 11, terrorist bombings.

Note the large numbers of reported cases of ear drum rupture (Tympanic perforation) and blast lung among the Madrid victims. And the total lack thereof among the WTC victims.

This is not surprising at all since jet fuel deflagration does not cause this type of injuries. And as reported in "Blast Injuries: Preparing For The Inevitable":

Jet fuel deflagration is regarded as a low order explosive.

Note also that only first- and second-degree burns were reported among the survivors of the Madrid bombings. While many of the WTC survivors suffered severe third-degree burns on large parts of their bodies from the jet fuel fires, needing months of hospitalization and skin grafts to recover. Not surprising either since high explosives as used in Madrid only generate a short flash. While deflagration of a jet fuel cloud will last several seconds.

Your use of the Madrid train bombings as an example does not help your case at all thewholesoul. Quiet the contrary.

no.1 we dont know exactly what type of explosives were used in the basement.
no.2 we dont know there exact location. it is not unreasonable that eardrums were not burst if the individuals were not beside the detonation.
no.3 post 377 outlines several events that cannot be explained by a deflagration.
no.4 we have been through this before norseman, you tried to explain the people running and screaming in B2-3, the loud explosion, the building shaking, the thick white smoke et cetera with falling debris. this hypothesis was debunked in post

the video of the madrid bombing proves that explosives can explain all the events experienced in the basement. your claim that these events in the basement are "fully consistent with aircraft impact and jet fuel fireballs traveling down the elevator shafts" is unproven and you have no comparative examples when this happened before.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think the claim that it has to take 30 seconds for the fireballs to reach the bottom because of the rain drops in Brazil is as stundie material as it gets. Definite nomination for stundie.

Heck just the notion that someone would bomb the basement when a plane hits for no purpose is stundie material.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry, this part of the discussion with the jet fuel dispersion isn't a fiueld I'm knowledgeable in, so I usually stay out of this... Just a few comments regarding a recernt post here:

no.1 we dont know exactly what type of explosives were used in the basement.

But they were powerful enough to sever elevator shafts from above?
They were so powerful that significan;t damage (IE, doors knocked off frames, marble walls fracturing, ceiling tiles and mechanical equipment was knocked out of place globally?

no.2 we dont know there exact location. it is not unreasonable that eardrums were not burst if the individuals were not beside the detonation.

Several thousand people were inside the towers dispersed throughout the levels, and not one reported a ruptured ear drum? Not even the persons in the basement?

no.3 post 377 outlines several events that cannot be explained by a deflagration.

I also covered that in post #380
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3753377&postcount=380

If you don't remember...

Only an irrational person will, in the face of plain evidence, still believe in the impossible and the untrue.

The following is a list of phenomena witnessed in North Tower:

(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

All of the above ACTUALLY HAPPENED and can be found here: http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

I guess I need to re clue you in:
(a) Sound of explosion
(b) Smoke
--- All associated with the plane impacts and debris striking the ground. Elevators falling down the shafts after some were severed by the impact a thousand ft above.


(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
-- all are side effects of the building flexing from the impact. As the eye witness accounts I gave in post 380 imply. Doors popped out of their frames, walls broke in jagged patterns.

You should read the testimony of Brian Clark: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

He describes the very same effects, your bombs in the basement argument does not explain why this level of damage was observed throughout the building reported by witnesses from the impact floors all the way down to the lobby. They would have to be incredibly powerful to cause global damage of that scale.

(m) Skin burnt off
Body parts blown off
(o) Pile of dead bodies

--- First off, I am assuming not all of the people who lost limbs died.... If that is the case then why are there still no reports of ruptured ear drums or the like? In order to sustain an injury that bad you need to be reasonably close to the explosion of the 'bombs' would you not?

The remainder is explained by the forces involved with the impact it self... people were thrown to the floor through out the towers...

 

[funk de fino]

so instead of tackling my argument you rather deconstruct my style of argumentation. is there no limit to your nitpicking?

Attacking your postings is not nitpicking. Your hypocrisy shows yet again.

correct

Yet you expect them to.

incorrect. go read my argument at post 430

yet you have no experimental proof?

correct. go refute post 430 and 377.

I can, you have no experimental proof.

incorrect.

Liar. This your whole style of reasoning. If one small detail or cherry picked staement is not refuted then the official narative is impossible. You have stated this many times. You handwave when people disprove your theory.

so i have to prove through experimentation that a droplet of jet fuel falls at the same time as a droplet of water but you do not have to prove through experimentation, a far more outlandish claim, that jet fuel can fall 93 floors in less than 10seconds and then deflagrate? i just love your double standards

And again you are so idiotic that you cannot see it is you who has the double standard. This is the whole point of my post and it flies right over your empty head. You have no idea how many deflagarations there were. There were all the elements required yet you claim it is an unreasonable claim and claim magical bombs which do nothing to aid the collapse and are witnessed by no-one and you have no proof of? Brilliant.

You are the hypocrite and your whole posting history shows this. You expect the unreasonable from NIST yet make false assumptions and claims based on misreading of statements. You ignore the physical evidence because your theory has none.

you are the only angry little man here evident once again by your inability to contain your insulting tongue. if you had any intelligence you would address arguments 377 and 430. until you do i will put you on ignore

I am not angry with you. I obviously make you angry when I prove you are lying and mistaken in some claims and you have to back down and shift goalposts.

Heres one from Norseman you may want to debunk from someone who was actually there and was not at home in the highchair throwing food at momma

To escape the falling debris, he turned around and was inside a revolving door when he noticed the lobby fill with a yellowish haze. He now suspects that may have been jet fuel exploding out of the elevator shaft. Then he heard a loud boom and saw a fireball coming toward him. The next thing he remembers is being thrown clear of the building and being on fire.

Well??

 

[Norseman]

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

In the above post thewholesoul puts a lot of faith into the witness account of Felipe David. Believing that he can use it to support his totally unsubstantiated claims about bombs in the basement.

But the fact is that the witness account of Felipe David is fully consistent with the sequence of events caused by the impact of Flight 11 into WTC 1. And that it is no different than any other witness account from all levels of the towers. This is what Felipe David said in an interview with a Columbian television station according to a transcription by Greg Szymanski:

"That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot.

"I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned. 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."

Source
(Note that the source of the transcript is peddling some pretty far out conspiracy theories, but the transcript looks valid.)

Some comparable witness accounts. My bolding:

From floor 91 just below the point of impact in WTC 1:

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? The whole place shook. The hallway started filling up with smoke. I started screaming for the rest of my crew to come out.

Yes he thought there was an explosion below him, when in fact an aircraft hit the building a couple of floors above his head.

From WTC 1:

25th floor to Lobby: Christopher Ferrer:
I remember this so clearly. It started as a rumble in our seats, and then grew into vibrations from the ceiling to the floor. It moved the building so much that our desk drawers popped open. We all stood up immediately, but couldn't move. The building was shaking from side to side, and we froze just to keep our balance. My vision was even affected. It was no different than watching some old movie that shook the camera to give the audience a sense of what was happening.

From WTC 1

Below 53rd floor
Kenton Beerman, 24, was also sending e-mail at work when an explosion rocked 1 World Trade Center, making it sway back and forth for 10 seconds.

At first, Beerman thought the building would fall into the Hudson River. Then he realized it had stopped moving and saw thousands of pieces of paper fluttering outside.

``We thought it was a bomb in the freight elevator,'' Beerman said, because the sound of the explosion seemed to have come from that direction.

From WTC 2:

53rd floor
Jack Alvo: I felt the impact of the explosion that I believed was at my feet. I heard the crashing glass around me as the building rocked. My hands began to shake and my knees buckled. I knew I could not stay where I was and I had to go lower. I made my way to the stairs, passing people along the way. I saw the horror and the fear in several faces as I went by them. I still believed the impact was at my feet and as I descended past floor 50 and floor 40 I was sure I was going to see disaster.

Maybe it was the vibrations from the impact transferred through the structure down to the floor Felipe David was standing on that led him to think that the explosion occurred below him. And as the accounts shows, it impossible to reliably tell from where a sound originates within a building.

The above quotes are found on these pages with original source together with numerous similar accounts:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts91-60
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,floo2
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethesouthtower:eyewitnessaccounts

You are well aware of them thewholesoul. But your understanding and interpretation of them is certainly lacking as you have shown time and time again throughout this thread. Any rationale reader of those witness accounts will see that the account of Felipe David is no different than the other accounts. Start reading.

And by the way in 1993 when a real bomb exploded in the basement of WTC a witness said the following according to BBC:

"It felt like an airplane hit the building," said Bruce Pomper, a 34-year-old broker.

The fact is that you got nothing thewholesoul.

 

[thewholesoul]

The fact is that the elapsed time between aircraft impact and the jet fuel fireballs arrival in the Lobby and basement levels of WTC 1 is an unknown factor.

As I said we do not know the exact time. Something the thewholesoul should keep in mind.

I never claimed to know the exact times. Of course the exact time is unknown and shall remain as such but we can approximate. For example, we can estimate how long it takes a droplet of fuel to descend 90+floors (30secs), we can estimate how long it takes a fireball (15 secs). We can estimate how long it takes car 50 to fall 17 floors (10secs). But what you fail to recognize is that my argument does not require that we know the exact times.
To explain, from the testimony of Felipe David, Philip Morelli, Arturo Griffith and Marlene Cruz we know that the first basement explosion occured BEFORE car 50 reached B1. This means that the fireball, jet fuel, or whatever new morphology takes the JREFers fancy – had to have passed car 50 undetected and then explode. There is no way around this fact.

Premise#1 is simple: (1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft. So basically what we have is a race. According to your latest modified position the fireball takes approximately 15 seconds to reach the basement. However this is still too slow because car 50 takes approximately 10 seconds to reach the basement and we know that the FIRST basement explosion occured BELOW car 50 and BEFORE car 50 reached the basement (see premise#4 post 430). So unfortunately your latest modified explanation fails.

On impact the fuel tanks were ruptured and most of the fuel was aerosolized into a cloud of tiny droplets that were ignited. The deflagration generated an overpressure that might have been as high as 5 psi at peak. The pressure forced unburned fuel outside WTC 1, forming the spectacular fireballs. And likewise it would force burning jet fuel aerosol down the elevator shafts. The positive pressure phase lasted about 30 seconds from aircraft impact.

In the paper "A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics" it was estimated that the fireball outside WTC 2 expanded with a velocity of 28 m/s.

If we use that figure on the case of the elevator shafts in WTC 1 we get a time of nearly 13 seconds. But then we have to factor in that the elevator shafts was a confined space compared to the open air outside the towers. So we can not use the 28 m/s directly. But this suggest that the time required was much shorter than what my first attempt in the OP indicated.

I would say that we safely can ignore any discussion of fuel droplet aerodynamics and breakup in the elevator shafts. The fuel was already aerosolized by the impact when it entered the elevator shafts. And the driving force was overpressure generated inside the fireball on the impact floors and overpressure generated by continued burning inside the elevator shafts.

Using a 10 second fall time for heavy debris and adding time to get into the lobby we get something like around 15 seconds.

Your latest modified argument is still essentially the official NIST fireball hypothesis. You reject the unofficial unignited jet fuel hypothesis. But I have debunked the official fireball hypothesis ages ago in post#210. But allow me once again to outline the many reasons why the official fireball hypothesis is false

1: As explained above it violates the known timeline of events.

2: The occupants in car 50 did not report or experience a fireball passing (see post#210)

3: There were no reports of car 50 being damaged from overpressures yet the overpressures supposedly burst down elevator shaft doors.

4: There are no reports of car 50 being burnt

5: Humans can detect jet fuel in the air as low as 1 ppm. Yet the occupants of car 50 did not smell burning jet fuel passing. Moreover they did not report the smell of jet fuel after the explosion in the basement had occured.

6: According to NIST the deflagration following the plane impact expanded at 28m/s for 2.5 secs. So the witnessed deflagration travelled approx. 70m from the impact zone but the unseen part of the same deflagration had to travel approx. 270m, almost FOUR TIMES A GREATER DISTANCE, in order to reach the basement. Norseman claims that “The driving force was overpressure generated inside the fireball on the impact floors and overpressure generated by continued burning inside the elevator shafts”. But wouldnt the burning jet fuel burn itself out before it reached the basement? Answer: yes it would.

8: Overpressure would decrease over distance and time away from the impact zone. Therefore elevator doors closer to the impact zone would be blown out. This would naturally reduce the strenght of the overpressure. Eventually as this process continued the descending fireball would not possess enough energy to burst down elevator shaft doors. Especially 90+ floors below the impact zone. For the official hypothesis to be true the fireball had to maintain its overpressure for 270m after travelling 13 seconds.

9: The official fireball hypothesis violates the natural behaviour of deflagrations. Deflagrations travel the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is down the elevator shaft. The path of greater resistence involves traveling down the elevators shaft and bursting out elevator shaft doors.

10: the official fireball hypothesis has never been tested or proven.

I could go on but 10 is a nice round number...

The above reasons I outlined above are why I am unable to RATIONALLY believe the official fireball hypothesis.

Perhaps the strongest argument against the argument that the first explosion in the basement was caused by an explosive (what, explosives causing explosions what an absurd proposition!!!) is based on medical reports of burst eardrums. But there were dead people in the lobby Norseman some had body parts blown off them. I dont think it is unreasonable to presume that their eardrums had also been burst. Of course such deaths and injuries are commonly associated with explosive detonations not deflagrations. I cover this in post#377. so not only have i established the official fireball hypothesis as being impossible (see post 430) i also outline the evidence for the use of explosive detonations (see post 377)

Finally, my arguments are supported to some extent by testimony. I use testimony from individuals directly infront of the freight elevator shaft door (Phillip Morelli, Felipe David). I use testimony from individuals inside elevators (Arturo Griffith, Marlene Cruz, Harry Kaiser and Carmen Griffith). Such accounts are the most relevant because according to the official fireball hypothesis the fireball in the basement descended the elevator shafts, and in particular, the freight elevator shaft. You on the other hand use testimony from individuals who were outside the north tower. Why do you not use the most relevant testimony? Is it because it does not support the official fireball hypothesis?

peace