Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[thewholesoul]

Are you really still on this sound vibration thing?

yes until we reach a conclusion and i have shown that they have no intelligent counter arguments.

TWS, YOU have to prove how it's impossible for steel vibrating to sounds like a rumble or explosion, since that is your argument.

wrong. i am arguing that it was caused by the detonation of an explosive device. they are arguing that it was caused by vibrations from plane crash 90+floors above. the BURDEN OR PROOF is theirs I'm afraid.

You got caught in a lie and now you are just trying to get out of it. As per usual.

why do you always look for the ad hom. i am not lying we are in a discussion.

Vibrating metal almost always sounds like an explosions,

"almost always" i like that one. in any case i disagree unless you can somehow PROVE your claim. on the following web page there are a list of explosive sounds. unfortunately I did not locate vibrating metal on the list.
http://www.shockwave-sound.com/sound-effects/explosion_sounds.html.

and heck one of the early principles of creating explosion sounds for special effects was vibrating metal plates.

perhaps in the same era they used tiny lizards and supersized them to look like dinosaurs! besides these metals plates you speak of, were they made of solid structure steel?

"but there was steel framework in the floor above felipe so why didnt the sound appear to originate from there? "

Low frequencies are omnidirectional and not directional. You cannot tell what direction they come from and if you think you do know the directions, then you are almost always wrong. The higher the frequency, the more directional, the lower the frequency, the less directional.

i fail to see how this refutes my point. if the low frequencies are omnidirectional then surely some people on B1 would hear the explosion above and some would hear it below. the uniformity of testimony in relation to where the explosion occured suggests to me that what they heard was a high frequency explosion - as one person described it as a "big bang". for this reason we can rule out that waht they heard was produced from vibrations through the steel frame work.

An example your average person might be able to relate to is your home theater sound system where you can pretty much put the sub woofer anywhere in the room since the direction of those frequencies cannot be heard. It's just a fundamental principle of sound waves.

why do you assume they heard low frequency waves?

this concept you have about direction is simply incorrect.

no its not, i agree with what you have said above. low frequency waves are omnidirectional, high frequencies are not. you fail to realize that i am arguing that what exploded in B2/3 was an explosive device. an explosive device gives off a high frequency.

but what confuses me even more is that you argue that a fireball or unignted jet fuel is what caused the explosion in B2/3 so why on earth are you arguing against me on this issue?

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

yes until we reach a conclusion and i have shown that they have no intelligent counter arguments.

Seeing as you have yet to make an intelligent argument, you are not in a position to be judging whether a counter argument is intelligent. Especially being as you lack the understanding of the subject.

wrong. i am arguing that it was caused by the detonation of an explosive device. they are arguing that it was caused by vibrations from plane crash 90+floors above. the BURDEN OR PROOF is theirs I'm afraid.

And you have yet to offer any proof of that. Instead you are arguing over how sounds travel through steel. In other words you're using the age old cultist logic of trying to cast doubt on other people's work so you can automatically just fill in your conspiracy theories without needing any evidence to back them up.

It's a known fact that sound will travel that distance, both in air and through materials. people in buildings blocks away ground level felt the impacts of the planes, and they were not even in the same building. YOU have to prove your claim of explosives. Simply denying this common physics issue is not proof of your conspiracy theory.

why do you always look for the ad hom. i am not lying we are in a discussion.

Then why did you lie? You made a claim that is known to be untrue. Just like the one about pointing that out is ad hom. Another lie. And do you want to keep score, because I could go back through the thread and make a collage of all your ad hom arguments.

"almost always" i like that one. in any case i disagree unless you can somehow PROVE your claim. on the following web page there are a list of explosive sounds. unfortunately I did not locate vibrating metal on the list.
http://www.shockwave-sound.com/sound-effects/explosion_sounds.html.

Again, you are in no position to disagree being that you have no understanding of the subject. I have indeed proven my case. If you have evidence to disagree with that, then please by all means show us. Vibrating metal is not a sound. But it does show that you completely failed to understand my explanation. Please go read the thread again, it's laid out very clearly. If you can't even understand the difference between a sound source and it's method of travel, then how can you be expected to have a debate on the issue?

perhaps in the same era they used tiny lizards and supersized them to look like dinosaurs! besides these metals plates you speak of, were they made of solid structure steel?

Are you on dope? And are you suggesting that the properties of metal are so different that one will vibrate and another will not? But to answer your question, yes, they use steel. The nicer ones in flat plates, the cheaper ones in spring shapes. And these methods are still used today.

i fail to see how this refutes my point. if the low frequencies are omnidirectional then surely some people on B1 would hear the explosion above and some would hear it below. the uniformity of testimony in relation to where the explosion occured suggests to me that what they heard was a high frequency explosion - as one person described it as a "big bang". for this reason we can rule out that waht they heard was produced from vibrations through the steel frame work.

No they would not. Read my 2nd post for the explanation. Omnidirectional does not mean a sound appears to come from every direction. It simply means the sound travels in every direction. You are mistaking the path the sound is traveling with how the multitude of reflections created by the source are perceived by the listener.

There is no such thing as a high frequency explosion. What would make a person describe an explosion as a big bang would be the low frequencies. Without them, they would describe the sound as a cap gun. For the reason they refer to it as a big band, we can pretty much rule out a sound that does not involve traveling through solid material.

why do you assume they heard low frequency waves?

Because of the basic physics of how sound works. They don't describe it as a snap or a poof, and thus it has to contain substantial low frequency content to be described as any kind of explosion or bang. This would be exactly the same for a bomb. So there being low frequency content or not has no bearing on the difference between a bomb or a plane impact.

The issue is you claiming that the sound of a bomb vs an impact determines the frequency content and how sound will travel. Both are absurdly false.

no its not, i agree with what you have said above. low frequency waves are omnidirectional, high frequencies are not. you fail to realize that i am arguing that what exploded in B2/3 was an explosive device. an explosive device gives off a high frequency.

A Plane impact also gives off high frequencies. But in both cases, it's the low frequencies that will be heard, not the high ones. The high frequencies will not travel through the building materials regardless of the source.

Your whole argument for it being an explosive device depends on it having come from below. And you determined that by them describing it as having come from below. But that does not in any way show the sound source was below them.

but what confuses me even more is that you argue that a fireball or unignted jet fuel is what caused the explosion in B2/3 so why on earth are you arguing against on this issue?

I am only arguing against your claims on how sound travels. I don't believe a bomb was involved because no one has shown any evidence what so ever to indicate a bomb. However the events that happened that day would all cause these things that you claim are evidence of a bomb.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

TWS, YOU have to prove how it's impossible for steel vibrating to sounds like a rumble or explosion, since that is your argument.

wrong. i am arguing that it was caused by the detonation of an explosive device. they are arguing that it was caused by vibrations from plane crash 90+floors above. the BURDEN OR PROOF is theirs I'm afraid.

And you have yet to offer any proof of that. Instead you are arguing over how sounds travel through steel. In other words you're using the age old cultist logic of trying to cast doubt on other people's work so you can automatically just fill in your conspiracy theories without needing any evidence to back them up...YOU have to prove your claim of explosives. Simply denying this common physics issue is not proof of your conspiracy theory.

So basically you saw the error in your initial accusation and retreated to labelling critical thinking against a proposed explanation as “the age old cultist logic of trying to cast doubt on other people’s work”. You then realized corrrectly that the burden of proof in relation to the detonation of an explosive device is on ME. Long ago I aked you to explain what evidence means to you, you wrote:

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

Now in post 377 I presented a detailed argument outlining many of the known events in the north tower basement and lobby with your standard of evidence in mind:

1: The following are just some of the events that we know occurred before a fireball arrived in the basment (a) (b) (d) (e) (k) (l) (m). In post 288 and post 329 I dismissed falling debris, a fireball, and unignited jet fuel as possible explanations.
According to Clueless’s own standard (a) (b) (d) (e) (k) (l) (m) should be considered as EVIDENCE of bombs because I have ruled out all other causal explanations.
2: The following cannot possibly be explained by a fuel deflagration that only produces a maximum overpressure of 5psi (g) (h) (i) (o).
Again according to his own standard (g) (h) (i) (o) should be considered as EVIDENCE of bombs because bombs are the only possible causal explanation and everything else can be ruled out.
3: Needless to say that ALL (a) to (o) can be causally explained by a bomb

Here was your [intelligent?] counter:

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG...[edited for brevity]

To continue when I asked you to proof your following claim

Vibrating metal almost always sounds like an explosions,

you had this to say

Again, you are in no position to disagree being that you have no understanding of the subject. I have indeed proven my case. If you have evidence to disagree with that, then please by all means show us.

Yes lord clueless I shall suspend my critical thinking because you know more on the subject of sound than I do.
Now because you failed to provide a representative example to illustrate YOUR OWN CLAIM, I had to do it for you. The best think I could think of was a railroad track as it, like a core column, is solid, steel, and very long. Here is the sound of a train http://www.tradebit.com/tagworld.php/railway+sound+effect I couldnt find the actual sound of the vibrations created by a train passing through the railroad tracks but given the FACT that one has to place one’s ear very close to it in order to detect the sound of the incoming train I think it is safe to assume that vibrations passing through a steel core column would not be very loud at all and would not be acurately described as an explosion, big bang, etc. This fact is of course contrary to all known testimony in B1 and B4.
After claiming that

Vibrating metal almost always sounds like an explosions,

you then then say in a subsequent post that

Vibrating metal is not a sound.

in attempt to somehow criticize me?
To support your claim in post 598 that

vibrating metal almost always sounds like an explosions

you say that

and heck one of the early principles of creating explosion sounds for special effects was vibrating metal plates

I then asked

were they made of solid structure steel?

you then replied

Are you on dope? And are you suggesting that the properties of metal are so different that one will vibrate and another will not? But to answer your question, yes, they use steel. The nicer ones in flat plates, the cheaper ones in spring shapes.

So in support of your own claim that you later dispute yourself, you used a NON REPRESENTATIVE example because the physical parameters of a steel metal plate used in special effects is not similar to the structural steel floor pans and core columns of the world trade center. You then make a strawman argument that I am suggesting that some metals will not vibrate when others will.
I said

if the low frequencies are omnidirectional then surely some people on B1 would hear the explosion above and some would hear it below. the uniformity of testimony in relation to where the explosion occured suggests to me that what they heard was a high frequency explosion

There is no such thing as a high frequency explosion. What would make a person describe an explosion as a big bang would be the low frequencies. Without them, they would describe the sound as a cap gun.

Seriously i appreciate your your input on the sound wave issue. i was under the illusion that explosions mainly produce high frequencies.
As for the sound of the direction i will address that in my next post.

Your whole argument for it being an explosive device depends on it having come from below.

Not true.
I said

but what confuses me even more is that you argue that a fireball or unignted jet fuel is what caused the explosion in B2/3 so why on earth are you arguing against on this issue?

I am only arguing against your claims on how sound travels.

So I am right when I say that you believe the first basement explosion was caused by a jet fuel deflagration?

peace

 

[WildCat]

Once again, what was the point of basement bombs?

 

[thewholesoul]

Once again, what was the point of basement bombs?

I could speculate but I am not going to.

There are two questions:

1. did an explosive device detonate in the basement and

2. what was the motive and function for such an explosive device

Ultimately only the terrorists who planted the explosives can truly answer the second question but the first question is the more fundamental one.

peace

 

[TexasJack]

I could speculate but I am not going to.

There are two questions:

1. did an explosive device detonate in the basement and

2. what was the motive and function for such an explosive device

Ultimately only the terrorists who planted the explosives can truly answer the second question but the first question is the more fundamental one.

peace

1. No

2. None

There you go, you finished with this nonsense now.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Painfully stupid. Why not just stop responding to him? It's like Christophera all over again.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So basically you saw the error in your initial accusation and retreated to labelling critical thinking against a proposed explanation as “the age old cultist logic of trying to cast doubt on other people’s work”. You then realized corrrectly that the burden of proof in relation to the detonation of an explosive device is on ME. Long ago I aked you to explain what evidence means to you, you wrote:

I made NO error in my initial accusation and I made no accusation. And you are NOT presenting critical thinking, you are presenting just the opposite, a complete lack of critical thinking replaced with speculations based on a pre-determined conclusion which is based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Cut with the crap kid, you're a fraud and you keep getting caught in your fraud.

Now in post 377 I presented a detailed argument outlining many of the known events in the north tower basement and lobby with your standard of evidence in mind:
Here was your [intelligent?] counter:

You presented a list of HUGE assumptions that were shown to be wrong. You didn't bother reading any of the responses or account for the errors you made. Again, argument and assumption are two different things. You're also using again the age old cultist technique of trying to prove your claims without evidence by simply trying to cast doubt on other arguments. You'll notice that in NOT a SINGLE one of your arguments do you resent actual evidence of bombs. Instead you list issues with other claims so that you can assume if they are wrong, then you can just make up anything you want. And WITHOUT using critical thinking. Critical thinking to you is someone planting bombs in the basement which would serve ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE what so ever. yeah, you're a critical thinker alright. About what we have no idea.

And funny how I make many posts and you sit here and pretend one snippet of one was my response. You are a liar and a fraud.

To continue when I asked you to proof your following claim you had this to say

Again, quoting out of context. You are a liar and a fraud.

Yes lord clueless I shall suspend my critical thinking because you know more on the subject of sound than I do.

You are NOT a critical thinker, please stop pretending to use critical thinking. Go look up the meaning of the term before you start using it. The problem is you lack any critical thinking.

Now because you failed to provide a representative example to illustrate YOUR OWN CLAIM, I had to do it for you. The best think I could think of was a railroad track as it, like a core column, is solid, steel, and very long. Here is the sound of a train http://www.tradebit.com/tagworld.php/railway+sound+effect I couldnt find the actual sound of the vibrations created by a train passing through the railroad tracks but given the FACT that one has to place one’s ear very close to it in order to detect the sound of the incoming train I think it is safe to assume that vibrations passing through a steel core column would not be very loud at all and would not be acurately described as an explosion, big bang, etc. This fact is of course contrary to all known testimony in B1 and B4.

I did not fail to provide a representative example to illusrate my own claim, i provided 3 or 4. Only someone who is a complete IDIOT would have read my posts and not seen them. Are you such an idiot? Either you read my post and saw my examples, or you didn't read my post and are being an idiot and saying I didn't give examples. Which is it?

Once again, your problem is your complete incompetence in the properties of sound. Hence you continuing to look for sounds of "vibrations". How idiotic can one get? SOUND IS VIBRATIONs. HELLO?!?!?!?!?! Do you understand that sound is vibrations itself and therefore there is no such thing as the sound of a vibration? Do you?

your example is of a train, not of railroad beams vibrating. Do yo9u not understand even these most basic grade school principles of sound? And you think that the sound waves of an explosion traveling through steel would be very quiet? If you knew even the most basic principles of sound you would know that is an idiotic claim. many of the explosions that people heard that day were from the steel alone (it makes an explosion sound as it cracks). The truth is that sound traveling through the air is going to be quieter, not the sound traveling through steel. Because the sound traveling through the air will be stopped by heavier materials like the walls and floors. Sound also travels FASTER through steel than it does through air.

What you are doing is MAKING CRAP UP. The stuff you are pulling out of your arse has no place in physics. You are simply MAKING IT UP. Please STOP MAKING THIS STUFF UP because you want to believe in your fantasy conspiracy theories that you cannot back up with any evidence.

After claiming that you then then say in a subsequent post that in attempt to somehow criticize me?

It's hard not to criticize you when you keep making completely fraudulent claims about the principles of sound. Bow it's one thing for someone to simply be wrong, but you are outright and intentionally being dishonest. And that is what makes you a liar. you claimed vibrating metal was a sound. Hello?

To support your claim in post 598 that you say that I then asked you then replied

You are again taking my quote out of context where I was talking about sound traveling through metal in regards to how low frequencies work and are the biggest attribute to what is described as an explosion. Why can't you for once make an honest argument without trying to manipulate the argument? Why do you have to be such a fraud? Is this to simply hide the fact that YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF BOMBS?

So in support of your own claim that you later dispute yourself, you used a NON REPRESENTATIVE example because the physical parameters of a steel metal plate used in special effects is not similar to the structural steel floor pans and core columns of the world trade center. You then make a strawman argument that I am suggesting that some metals will not vibrate when others will.
I said

I do not dispute my own evidence, you are simply quoting out of context to deceptively make it look that way and to mislead people. That is why you are a fraud. And the metal plates ARE a representative example. STOP LYING. Do you ever not LIE? You ARE making the argument that some metals will vibrate and other swill not. It's a LIE, but you're making it and then pretending you are not. Again, is this dishonesty of yours to hide the fact that you have no evidence for your bombs?

Seriously i appreciate your your input on the sound wave issue. i was under the illusion that explosions mainly produce high frequencies.
As for the sound of the direction i will address that in my next post.

You are under a lot of illusions. Basically you started out with the conclusion that bombs were used and are working backwards from there. When things don't fit the way you want, you simply make them up. you didn't think that explosions cause mainly high frequencies, you simply couldn't find a better way to make your pre-determined conclusions to fit. So you started making stuff up to fit that conclusion.

Not true.
I said

So I am right when I say that you believe the first basement explosion was caused by a jet fuel deflagration?

peace

My believe which you are making assumptions on has no bearing on this. You're simply trying to weasel out of being called on making up claims about sound.

Here's the bottom line:

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF BOMBS. So instead you are trying to cast doubt on the actual plausible causes which aren't 100% certain, but the most plausible. You feel that if you can do that, then you can just say "well the only other possibility is bombs". just like creationists look for somethign science might not be able to account for and then say "see God must exist". Same thing you are doing. You know you cannot prove your conspiracy theory, so this is the best you can do. being dishonest so as to distract everyone from the fact that you have no evidence.

And what is even sadder is that you fail to see how absolutely absurd your conspiracy theory even is. it's your biggest weakness and is why you are laughed at. This notion that someone would plant bombs in the basement which serve absolutely no purpose what so ever? I mean do you not see why when you make these claims you aren't taken seriously? you think you can get around that by making stuff up and looking for things that cannot be known for certain?

Give it a rest.

Peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I could speculate but I am not going to.

There are two questions:

1. did an explosive device detonate in the basement and

2. what was the motive and function for such an explosive device

Ultimately only the terrorists who planted the explosives can truly answer the second question but the first question is the more fundamental one.

peace

What do you mean you're not going to speculate? Your ENTER argument is speculation. "Well, I can't find an answer to this argument, so I will just make an assumption and speculate is must have been bombs". And you claim you won't speculate? Do you read your own posts?!?!?!

you know real researchers, find the motive, as does any criminal investigation. It's probably the most important element of an investigation. But you, like all the other frauds, when asked to back your claims up, suddenly decided to stop speculating. Which is just another way of saying you have no way of backing your claims up.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

As I've already said one can't rationally argue in favor of an irrational position.

Thewholesoul creates a false dilemma by treating witness statements as static, excluding all secondary factors that are utterly imperative to understanding witness testimony.

In establishing his false dilemma position he doesn't care if the purpose of his proposed explosives is completely unknown and apparently serve no purpose in the ultimate destruction of the towers.

And now we're arguing semantics about sound with a debater who takes witness accounts entirely at face value to argue his false dilemma as fact.

Thewholesoul I have every respect for your ability to write but it doesn't justify you being either intellectually dishonest or making intellectually brain dead assertions. I think my last response to you in this thread made that rather clear enough.

 

[thewholesoul]

I made NO error in my initial accusation and I made no accusation. And you are NOT presenting critical thinking, you are presenting just the opposite, a complete lack of critical thinking replaced with speculations based on a pre-determined conclusion which is based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Cut with the crap kid, you're a fraud and you keep getting caught in your fraud.



You presented a list of HUGE assumptions that were shown to be wrong. You didn't bother reading any of the responses or account for the errors you made. Again, argument and assumption are two different things. You're also using again the age old cultist technique of trying to prove your claims without evidence by simply trying to cast doubt on other arguments. You'll notice that in NOT a SINGLE one of your arguments do you resent actual evidence of bombs. Instead you list issues with other claims so that you can assume if they are wrong, then you can just make up anything you want. And WITHOUT using critical thinking. Critical thinking to you is someone planting bombs in the basement which would serve ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE what so ever. yeah, you're a critical thinker alright. About what we have no idea.

And funny how I make many posts and you sit here and pretend one snippet of one was my response. You are a liar and a fraud.



Again, quoting out of context. You are a liar and a fraud.



You are NOT a critical thinker, please stop pretending to use critical thinking. Go look up the meaning of the term before you start using it. The problem is you lack any critical thinking.



I did not fail to provide a representative example to illusrate my own claim, i provided 3 or 4. Only someone who is a complete IDIOT would have read my posts and not seen them. Are you such an idiot? Either you read my post and saw my examples, or you didn't read my post and are being an idiot and saying I didn't give examples. Which is it?

Once again, your problem is your complete incompetence in the properties of sound. Hence you continuing to look for sounds of "vibrations". How idiotic can one get? SOUND IS VIBRATIONs. HELLO?!?!?!?!?! Do you understand that sound is vibrations itself and therefore there is no such thing as the sound of a vibration? Do you?

your example is of a train, not of railroad beams vibrating. Do yo9u not understand even these most basic grade school principles of sound? And you think that the sound waves of an explosion traveling through steel would be very quiet? If you knew even the most basic principles of sound you would know that is an idiotic claim. many of the explosions that people heard that day were from the steel alone (it makes an explosion sound as it cracks). The truth is that sound traveling through the air is going to be quieter, not the sound traveling through steel. Because the sound traveling through the air will be stopped by heavier materials like the walls and floors. Sound also travels FASTER through steel than it does through air.

What you are doing is MAKING CRAP UP. The stuff you are pulling out of your arse has no place in physics. You are simply MAKING IT UP. Please STOP MAKING THIS STUFF UP because you want to believe in your fantasy conspiracy theories that you cannot back up with any evidence.


It's hard not to criticize you when you keep making completely fraudulent claims about the principles of sound. Bow it's one thing for someone to simply be wrong, but you are outright and intentionally being dishonest. And that is what makes you a liar. you claimed vibrating metal was a sound. Hello?


You are again taking my quote out of context where I was talking about sound traveling through metal in regards to how low frequencies work and are the biggest attribute to what is described as an explosion. Why can't you for once make an honest argument without trying to manipulate the argument? Why do you have to be such a fraud? Is this to simply hide the fact that YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF BOMBS?



I do not dispute my own evidence, you are simply quoting out of context to deceptively make it look that way and to mislead people. That is why you are a fraud. And the metal plates ARE a representative example. STOP LYING. Do you ever not LIE? You ARE making the argument that some metals will vibrate and other swill not. It's a LIE, but you're making it and then pretending you are not. Again, is this dishonesty of yours to hide the fact that you have no evidence for your bombs?



You are under a lot of illusions. Basically you started out with the conclusion that bombs were used and are working backwards from there. When things don't fit the way you want, you simply make them up. you didn't think that explosions cause mainly high frequencies, you simply couldn't find a better way to make your pre-determined conclusions to fit. So you started making stuff up to fit that conclusion.




My believe which you are making assumptions on has no bearing on this. You're simply trying to weasel out of being called on making up claims about sound.

Here's the bottom line:

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF BOMBS. So instead you are trying to cast doubt on the actual plausible causes which aren't 100% certain, but the most plausible. You feel that if you can do that, then you can just say "well the only other possibility is bombs". just like creationists look for somethign science might not be able to account for and then say "see God must exist". Same thing you are doing. You know you cannot prove your conspiracy theory, so this is the best you can do. being dishonest so as to distract everyone from the fact that you have no evidence.

And what is even sadder is that you fail to see how absolutely absurd your conspiracy theory even is. it's your biggest weakness and is why you are laughed at. This notion that someone would plant bombs in the basement which serve absolutely no purpose what so ever? I mean do you not see why when you make these claims you aren't taken seriously? you think you can get around that by making stuff up and looking for things that cannot be known for certain?

Give it a rest.

Peace

wow, what an emotional display of insults and nonesense.

you wont even define your own position in relation to the first basement explosion. you refuse to counter my arguments in an intelligent way. i think an impartial observer will see this.

peace

 

[Drudgewire]

you wont even define your own position in relation to the first basement explosion. you refuse to counter my arguments in an intelligent way. i think an impartial observer will see this.

What arguments?

There are two questions:

1. did an explosive device detonate in the basement and

2. what was the motive and function for such an explosive device

There's nothing to argue. You have no evidence for your position, and admit it with question one. Yet it becomes a given that question one is "yes" and therefore we need to focus on question 2 despite the complete inplausibility of the lead-in.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

you wont even define your own position in relation to the first basement explosion. you refuse to counter my arguments in an intelligent way. i think an impartial observer will see this.

It's difficult to take your arguments seriously when you treat witness statements as if the meaning to them is entirely based on the literal vocabulary the people use. You have unfathomable faith in taking such things at face value, and given your posting style I discern your "arguments" as intellectually dishonest. You're not delusional or stupid, you're intellectually presenting an invalid argument with no merit and you seem fully aware of it. I've discussed my reasons already, and whether you respond to them or not the points stand

 

[thewholesoul]

Grizzly:
So much to respond to I will keep it brief.

1 Against the claim that the explosion they heard passed down the air in the elevator shaft I argued that they would have felt the building shake before they heard the explosion. In response you said

Given that the two sounds were separated at most by about .5 to 1 second, depending on his location in the basement and the environmental factors he may or may not have been able to discern between the separate events.

I can accept this point.

2 Against the claim that the explosion they heard passed down the air and/or steel core columns, I argued that they would have would have heard the explosion coming the elevator door but this is not supported by any testimony in sub basement level 1. In response you said

I assumed that only the steel core would experience the secondary effects of the impact.

This answer avoids the problem.

3 I argued that vibrations passing through steel core columns do not sound like explosions. Your response was

yes, structural members can generate popping loud sounds among others when undergoing excessive flexing or shear stresses. I believe this crane collapse illustrates my point.

I accept this point and thanks for clarifying your position.

So your not arguing that vibrations through a steel core column can sound like an explosion, your arguing that vibrations passing through a steel core column can sound like an explosion when it causes the connections or bolts within the structural members to pop.

Vibrations on their own – like vibrations passing through a railroad track – do not produce loud noises anything similar to an explosion due to their physical parameters.

4 Against the claim that the explosion they heard was a result of the steel structure reverberating I agued that because the steel structure was also above them then why didnt they hear the explosion above them. Your response was to refer me to JC.

I will address JC’s argument in a later post

Against the claim that the first basement explosion was caused by reverberations in the steel structure I cited the testimony of Salvatore Giambanco who was on the opposite side of B1 in respect to Felipe David. Here is what he said

"We heard the explosion and the smoke all of a sudden came from all over. There was an incredible force of wind that also swept everything away. I remember hearing a scream of a woman, but I couldn't see her.

In response you said

Forget for a second that I never argued that anything that transmitted through the steel structure generated that wind. If they were that powerful of explosives I'd be asking what sort of miracle led to his survival and failed to send a portion of the interior space into partial collapse.

This is a completely unsatisfactory answer. You avoid addressing his testimony. You should seriously contemplate the implications of the words you write

Thewholesoul creates a false dilemma by treating witness statements as static, excluding all secondary factors that are utterly imperative to understanding witness testimony.

if you are honestly trying to understand witness testimony you should try actually addressing it as opposed to wishing it away.

And listen carefully my friend, his testimony alone debunks your hypothesis that the first basement explosion was caused by the steel structure reverberating because a reverberating steel structure does not produce an incredible force of wind and certainly does not produce smoke. Felipe David recieved burn injuries almost immediately after he heard the explosion from below, reverberating steel structures do not burn peoples skin off their faces.

As I've already said one can't rationally argue in favor of an irrational position.

If you do not do the rational thing and abandon your current explanation in relation to the first basment explosion you will be guilty of holding onto a rational belief irrationally.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

It's difficult to take your arguments seriously when you treat witness statements as if the meaning to them is entirely based on the literal vocabulary the people use. You have unfathomable faith in taking such things at face value, and given your posting style I discern your "arguments" as intellectually dishonest. You're not delusional or stupid, you're intellectually presenting an invalid argument with no merit and you seem fully aware of it. I've discussed my reasons already, and whether you respond to them or not the points stand

why are you going down the "your a liar" route Grizzly? I am here just like you having a discussion about what caused the first basement explosion.

i may be guilty of literal interpretation but you are guilty of mis-interpretation. testimony provides a window into the events that day and explanations should try and account for all the events described.

the first basement explosion involved 8 characteristics:

- had a loud explosion
- caused the building to shake
- produced smoke
- produced incredible wind
- produced structural damage
- people running and screaming
- knocked people over
- burnt people

now all of these can be EASILY explained by the detonation of an explosive device and nobody in here is willing to deny this fact. to prove that the detonation of an explosive device can produce these effects watch the following link http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=_Arqevz05Eo

i have been in this thread a while now and have heard in total four different explanations for the first basement explosion.

1) the official explanation is the fireball hypothesis. this fails because the first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1 thus whatever exploded below car 50 had to descend 90+ floors, pass car 50 undetected, and then explode. but this is not possible for reasons i have outlined on many occassions and i welcome any criticism of my argument in post 430.

then there are three unofficial explanations.

2) the unignited jet fuel hypothesis suggests that instead of a fireball, unignited jet fuel descended the 90+ floors passed car 50 and then exploded but this is even less possible given that droplets of fuel fall at approximately 9m/s.

3) then there is the falling debris hypothesis but this fails to account for the 8 characteristics.

4) then finally we have the shockwave hypothesis but again this fails to account for the 8 characteristics.

the truth is debunkers do not argue that the detonation of an explosive device is impossible rather they look to establish a plausible and alternative explanation. I have debunked - as in shown to be impossible - the four alternative explanations. now if anyone disagrees with me, i welcome a discussion. pick an explanation and lets find out.

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This answer avoids the problem.

That answer you quoted wasn't intended to state anything further aside from the fact that I failed to take into account that the entire building acts as a medium, not just the core columns. It was a clarification.

So your not arguing that vibrations through a steel core column can sound like an explosion, your arguing that vibrations passing through a steel core column can sound like an explosion when it causes the connections or bolts within the structural members to pop.

Not just the structural connection members, but the columns as well. However this is all general considering to establish what the columns themselves would be responsible for requires knowing the ambient conditions inside the basements.

Vibrations on their own – like vibrations passing through a railroad track – do not produce loud noises anything similar to an explosion due to their physical parameters.

That's true, but whether it compares well with a 110-story building being hit by plane is a totally different situation. The comparison you're suggestion is not a universal rule for every application of steel and the circumstances of events.

Against the claim that the first basement explosion was caused by reverberations in the steel structure I cited the testimony of Salvatore Giambanco who was on the opposite side of B1 in respect to Felipe David. Here is what he said In response you said

-------

This is a completely unsatisfactory answer. You avoid addressing his testimony. You should seriously contemplate the implications of the words you write if you are honestly trying to understand witness testimony you should try actually addressing it as opposed to wishing it away.

When a bomb powerful enough to be felt like that goes off it sends out a pressure wave that upon impacting a living body can hit with enough force to liquefy your internal organs. Especially if the person was extremely close to the detonation. However let's say he "was too far away" to suffer trauma from the expanding pressure wave. For that effect to be felt farther out would require that your proposed explosives were quite powerful, and it apparently had no effect on the core structure, in fact the core as mentioned many times before was the last to collapse.

if you are honestly trying to understand witness testimony you should try actually addressing it as opposed to wishing it away.

Then why do you continue to base your evidence on the face value of the testimony?

And listen carefully my friend, his testimony alone debunks your hypothesis that the first basement explosion was caused by the steel structure reverberating because a reverberating steel structure does not produce an incredible force of wind and certainly does not produce smoke.

My bolding: I never claimed it did. Nice strawman.

Felipe David recieved burn injuries almost immediately after he heard the explosion from below, reverberating steel structures do not burn peoples skin off their faces.

He also received them immediately after a 100-ton passenger jet loaded with as much as 10,000 US gallons of jet fuel rammed into the upper floors of the tower. Witnesses as well reported smelling kerosene in the lobby, which is entirely inconsistent with explosives. Each to his own I suppose.

If you do not do the rational thing and abandon your current explanation in relation to the first basment explosion you will be guilty of holding onto a rational belief irrationally.

You have it reversed

i may be guilty of literal interpretation but you are guilty of mis-interpretation.

Is this a Tu Quoque remark? Explain to me where you disagree with my interpretation. I consider that having a significant event occur as severe as a plane crashing into a building leads to massive confusion. I consider that people in chaotic situations use hyperboles, metaphors, and similes, I consider that witness accounts are fallible.

Additionally I consider that even reading a witnesses' account who was right there in person does not give me a complete grasp on what the feeling of the situation was like. And to clarify I'll put that into perspective. Do you know what it's like to ride out a major hurricane inside your house, with all of the walls around you coming down? I can tell you what I experienced, but do you fully understand what my experience was after telling you? Probably not unless you experience it yourself first hand.

testimony provides a window into the events that day and explanations should try and account for all the events described.

And as I emphasized above, it requires more than just reading the written text to understand what was happening. The witnesses you're using had no idea a plane even hit the towers until sometime later when they escaped before the buildings collapsed. You stated in your tu quoque rebuttal to me, that you may have been guilty of literal interpretation, but that certainly does not excuse you from trying to pass literal interpretation as fact if you've not looked further than the text.

the first basement explosion involved 8 characteristics:

- had a loud explosion
- caused the building to shake
- produced smoke
- produced incredible wind
- produced structural damage
- people running and screaming
- knocked people over
- burnt people



now all of these can be EASILY explained by the detonation of an explosive device and nobody in here is willing to deny this fact.

That's because just about anything that explodes with massive force will create many if not all of the same effects you're painting to support your explosives hypothesis. And something you tend to not consider in your arguements is that the energy released by the plane impacts was far greater by many magnitudes than any explosive you could argue were inside those towers.

to prove that the detonation of an explosive device can produce these effects watch the following link http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=_Arqevz05Eo

Youtube is being a pain in the rear with maintainance. I'm afraid my response to this video will be delayed

 

[thewholesoul]

I have been meaning to respond to a post by Norseman he said in relation to the testimony of Felipe David that:

“The impact shock wave would reach B1 instantly. Felipe David would hear the impact sound transferred through the core columns. And he would feel the impact shock wave and the following vibrations through the floors below him would lead him to believe that explosion occured below him. He was burned after he heard the explosion, noticed that the building was shaking and that dust was flying everywhere. What burned him was the jet fuel fireballs coming down the elevator shafts from the impact zone. In post #269 I described some other very likely sources of explosive sounds before the arrival of the jet fuel fireballs that burned Felipe David. The falling debris would also explain the dust described by Felipe David”

To summarise:

(a) the sound of the explosion was casued by a shockwave
(b) the building shaking was caused by a shockwave
(c) the dust flying everywhere was caused by falling debris
(d) the intense heat that burnt Felipe was caused by a jet fuel fireball

Time of arrival:

(a) immediately (shockwave travels at 4500m/s)
(b) immediately (shockwave travels at 4500m/s)
(c) 10 seconds (Norseman post#269)
(d) 15 seconds (Norsman post#492)

What follows is the full testimony of Felipe David’s experience, but I want you to ask yourself while reading – is it reasonable or accurate to interpret from the following testimony a 15 second delay between the sound of the explosion and the intense heat felt by Felipe?

Felipe’s testimony in full:

“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.'

When Felipe finally got to his feet he ran for help in a nearby office

co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

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

According to my interpretation, whatever caused the sound of the explosion also caused the burn injuries to Felipe.

In addition, Norseman contends that the fireball arrived after car 50 reached B1, that means that for the 15 seconds between the sound of the explosion and the oncoming fireball Felipe somehow did not notice a falling elevator grinding to a hault?

As for the dust flying everywhere Norseman argues that this was the result of falling debris such as gypsum and conrete falling down the shaft but what he doesnt explain is how such material would just turn into dust? We only have to look across the corridors of B1 to Salvatore Giambanco. He mentions an incredible wind produced by the first basement explosion. Such winds could easily explain the dust observed “flying everywhere” by Felipe.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

wow, what an emotional display of insults and nonesense.

you wont even define your own position in relation to the first basement explosion. you refuse to counter my arguments in an intelligent way. i think an impartial observer will see this.

peace

No, you got caught in a lie and even you cannot back out of it. So this is your futile response to pretend it's nothing but insults. How pathetic. Your arguments have been countered and proven fraudulent beyond any doubt. Like the other 9/11 cultists, you are just another fraud.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove your bomb fantasy and your goal is to keep everyone's attention on your casted doubt of the most plausible scenarios so that you can the pretend that your baseless theories can be automatically correct. YOU are a fraud.

peace.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i may be guilty of literal interpretation but you are guilty of mis-interpretation. testimony provides a window into the events that day and explanations should try and account for all the events described.

the first basement explosion involved 8 characteristics:

- had a loud explosion
- caused the building to shake
- produced smoke
- produced incredible wind
- produced structural damage
- people running and screaming
- knocked people over
- burnt people

now all of these can be EASILY explained by the detonation of an explosive device and nobody in here is willing to deny this fact. to prove that the detonation of an explosive device can produce these effects watch the following link http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=_Arqevz05Eo

Finally watched the video and my answer remains unchanged from my previous response:

That's because just about anything that explodes with massive force will create many if not all of the same effects you're painting to support your explosives hypothesis.

Everything you list is circular, and you're trying to use everything that supports the plane impact effects to assert a different conclusion.

1) the official explanation is the fireball hypothesis. this fails because the first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1 thus whatever exploded below car 50 had to descend 90+ floors, pass car 50 undetected, and then explode. but this is not possible for reasons i have outlined on many occassions and i welcome any criticism of my argument in post 430.

Did you ever read those numerous witness accounts in which the the entire building shook violently as a direct result of the plane impacts? I swear I provided most of the account found on Gravy's site just for you... Some reported that they though the force came from below as well.

So to the part I bolded, the entire building acts as a medium, and the claim you make is irrelevant because the impact effects would have been felt from roof to floor of each level. None of that transfer of forces requires "something" to "travel past the elevator undetected and then explode". It's not even necessary as the dynamics of the plane impact demonstrated.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Even though it's poor audio quality, the impact of the plane causes an explosions (boom!). There is no 2nd explosion that happens separately, just the one from the plane hitting the building. The sound created is an explosion, it's cause by a plane hitting the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8