Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[thewholesoul]

Bear

lets keep this real simple.

you argued that the first basement explosion was caused by the reverberations of the steel structure.

below is 8 characteristics of the first basement explosion. reverberations of the steel structure cannot possibly explain or account for all of these characteristics Grizzly that means that logically it should be abandoned in favour of a better alternative that can explain all these characteristics.

1 - had a loud explosion
2 - caused the building to shake
3 - produced smoke
4 - produced incredible wind
5 - produced structural damage
6 - people running and screaming
7 - knocked people over
8 - burnt people

instead of conceding and admiting that reverberations were not the cause of the first basement explosion unfortunately you continue on an obvious and futile pattern of evasion. you write:

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.

•Your still not addressing my counter argument. Salvatore describes incredible wind and smoke following the first basement explosion. can a reverberating steel structure do that? Its a yes or no Grizzly. If no, then you should do the rational thing and seek an alternative explanation for the first basement explosion.

•Regardless its a very strange response. Your arguing that for those effects as described by Salvatore to be felt far way from the explosion it had to made by powerful explosives but because these powerful explosives did not have any effect on the core structure they were therefore not powerful explosives? (have I undertsood your argument incorrectly?)

•As mentioned many times before the outer stronger core columns somehow were not left standing. And the remaining spire for the most part fell downwards into itself not sideways. But all this is assuming of course that the first basement explosion was planted to cut the core columns. Perhaps it was planted to serve a different role? But that would be entering the realm of speculation.

I said

his testimony [salvatore giambanco] 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.

you replied:

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

I know that you’ve never claimed that and I never claimed that you did but what also I know is that you have been arguing since post 592 along with Norseman that the first basement explosion heard by Felipe David, Philip Morell etc resulted from the reverberations of the steel structure. It is only now AFTER I have expanded my argument to include further witness testimony, that you CANNOT ANSWER, do you seek to distance yourself from your previous explanation. But I can understand why your trying to save a little face, I had to eat my words after johnneyclueless explained that explosions by and large produce low frequencies not high frequency wavelengths. This is why discussion and debate is a good thing becuase only through disagreement can we find a way to eliminate what is untrue.

Next in response to

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.

you write:

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.

In any event, I appreciate your response because it shows me that you are now in the process of changing your old position from the “reverberating steel structure” as the cause behind the first basement explosion to the official “fireball hypothesis”. Unfortunately you can not have it both ways because the reverberations occured almost immediately after impact whereas according to Norseman’s latest calculations it took 15 seconds for the fireball to reach Felipe David. So the first basement explosion cannot possibly be caused by the reverberating steel structure AND the fireball, its an either/or I’m afraid.

If indeed you are now endorsing the official hypothesis I will explain to you teh reasons why I think that is impossible if you wish? And for you information, unlike the lobby, there is NO testimony on B1 or B4 that reported smelling kerosene which is a strong reason to suggest that what exploded somewhere in B2/3 was not a jet fuel deflagration.

In response to the following statement

now all of these [8 characteristics] can be EASILY explained by the detonation of an explosive device and nobody in here is willing to deny this fact.

you said:

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.

•First of all it is noted that you are not disputing my claim i.e. that the detoantion of an explosive device can indeed produce all the effects listed. So it is completely rational to propose that these effects could have been caused by an explosive.

•You then claim that “just about anything that explodes with massive force” can account for ALL these effects. You list no examples. But fortunately our options are limited. A jet fuel deflagration could arguably have been the cause. Aside from that I cant think of anything else that could possibly account for the manifestation of these effects in the north tower basement apart from the detonation of an explosive device.

•The reason I did not consider the energy released by the plane impact – NIST estimates that the deflagration on upon impact generated a psi between 2 and 3 – is because that was not directly the cause of the basement explosion. The energy released passed down the building as a shockwave and we have ruled that out. The most plausible candidate for anti-truthers is that jet fuel or a fireball eminated from the impact zone and exploded in the basement.

In response to the following statement:

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 said:

You have it reversed

To explain; when you argued that the sound of the first basement explosion was caused by reverberations through the steel structure and you provided a video example of this occuring, that was a rational belief. But when I expanded my argument to include testimony that could not be explained by reverberations then the only way you could have held onto this ‘rational belief`would have been irrationally because you have no valid reasons or examples to argue that reverberations can produce incredible wind, smoke, and heat.

Now when you said that

one can't rationally argue in favor of an irrational position.

this is not entirely accurate. Just debate a Christian over the concept of the Trinity and you will see. They will argue rationally, that is, they will provide many reasons in support of the aforementioned concept. So to be more accurate perhaps you should have said one cant rationally argue – successfully – in favour of an irrational position.

But my bone of contention is with your application of this statement to me. As explained everyone one of the 8 characteristics of the first basement explosion can be caused by the detonation of an explosive device. This fact you do not even dispute yourself. It is entirely plausible and rational to argue that it was in fact caused by an explosive. Now if you wish to argue in favor of the fireball hypothesis lets do it but eventhough it too is a plausible and rational hypothesis you will not succeed in making your case.

Is this a Tu Quoque remark? Explain to me where you disagree with my interpretation.

Ok, you said:

Morelli was knocked off his feet as the entire building shook violently.

but morelli said

that is when I got blown. The impact of the explosion or whatever happened threw me to the floor.

he “blown” over by the impact he did not fall because the building was shaking.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That's a lot of work for not having any evidence of an explosive device...

 

[thewholesoul]

i just read your latest post...

what is your position Grizzly? your swinging back and forth like a yoyo. so please state clearly what is your position in relation to the first basement explosion. in other words what caused the 8 characteristics of the first basement explosion in your opinion?

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

What are you talking about, I am simply using testimony to establish the effects of the first basement explosion. If you think that these effects arose due to secondary explosions or a shockwave then say which one becasue it cant be both.

Did you ever read those numerous witness accounts in which the the entire building shook violently as a direct result of the plane impacts?

Yes – so whats your point? That the first basement explosion was caused by reverberations in the steel structure?

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.

No need to swear. You didnt provide the numerous accounts – I did ask. But here are two: Mike McQuaid on the 91st floor of the north tower, who stated:

the electrician installing fire alarms, was sure he knew what he was feeling: an exploding transformer, from a machine room somewhere below the 91st floor. Nothing else could rock the place with such power 53rd floor south tower

and Jack Alvo on the 53rd floor of the south tower, who stated

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

there could be more but those are the main ones.

In any event, the vast majority of individuals in the north tower who did hear the impact indicated that it came from above them. This of course blows JC’s claim out of the water that:

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.

in a subsequent post, he adds:

If you are in a building and an explosion were to occur above you, you would almost always think the sound came from below.

it was the exception, not the rule, that those below the impact zone believed the sound of the impact came from below. So this ‘almost always’ is pure unsubstantiated rubbish.

In response to the following statement:

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.

you said:

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.

•Your obviously confused and misunderstood the point I was making. My statement was in reference to the official fireball hypothesis and your talking about [still] the shockwave/reverberating steel structure hypothesis. [see post #236 it will bring you up to speed on the official fireball hypothesis]. according to the official hypothesis the fireball shot down the elevator shaft from the impact zone so in order for it to explode below car 50 it had to have passed car 50, undetected.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, what is the evidence that the basement explosion was caused by a bomb?

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

you argued that the first basement explosion was caused by the reverberations of the steel structure.

I'm talking about the sound, that could be associated in metaphorical terms with that of an explosion. Please do not make the mistake of assuming I'm claim such would be the explosion.

instead of conceding and admiting that reverberations were not the cause of the first basement explosion unfortunately you continue on an obvious and futile pattern of evasion. you write:

•Your still not addressing my counter argument. Salvatore describes incredible wind and smoke following the first basement explosion. can a reverberating steel structure do that? Its a yes or no Grizzly. If no, then you should do the rational thing and seek an alternative explanation for the first basement explosion.

Once again never claimed the reverberations of the steel structure caused such phenomena. The effect of the plane impacts on the structure and the other resulting physical effects would have been separate events. Once again, don't mistake my intentions.

•Regardless its a very strange response. Your arguing that for those effects as described by Salvatore to be felt far way from the explosion it had to made by powerful explosives but because these powerful explosives did not have any effect on the core structure they were therefore not powerful explosives? (have I undertsood your argument incorrectly?)

I'll likely need to clarify the statement so that my point is clearer... which I'll commit to later.

•As mentioned many times before the outer stronger core columns somehow were not left standing.

I'm assuming you must be talking about the exterior columns? It's not terribly surprising as they're experiencing a range of dynamical forces during collapse progression. You will have to discuss this with a qualified engineer to get a better understanding as I'm not polished enough to explain them to you through proper mathematical methods.

And the remaining spire for the most part fell downwards into itself not sideways.

Just to add to the clarification the "spire" that remained was in fact the remainer of the interior core columns. In fact it is as well worth noting that the lowest levels of the core in the north tower surround staircase B survived the collapse of the towers which in effect enabled a few lucky people to survive the collapse. If anything were responsible for taking out the core columns, be it well before (for whatever ridiculously stupid purpose they would have served), or during the collapse, it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible for those people to have gotten where they had.

In any event, I appreciate your response because it shows me that you are now in the process of changing your old position from the “reverberating steel structure” as the cause behind the first basement explosion to the official “fireball hypothesis”.

I'm not arguing in favor of any explosion in the basement I'm arguing the the secondary effects of the planeimpacts... so I'm not quite sure what you're claiming here... The only point I've ever asserted to argue, and the point I suspect Norseman was trying to make to you was the sound made by the structure in reaction to the impacts. The fireballs and the direct impact-related reaction of the structure are two separate components originating from one common cause.

Unfortunately you can not have it both ways because the reverberations occured almost immediately after impact whereas according to Norseman’s latest calculations it took 15 seconds for the fireball to reach Felipe David. So the first basement explosion cannot possibly be caused by the reverberating steel structure AND the fireball, its an either/or I’m afraid.

See my above response.

If indeed you are now endorsing the official hypothesis I will explain to you teh reasons why I think that is impossible if you wish? And for you information, unlike the lobby, there is NO testimony on B1 or B4 that reported smelling kerosene which is a strong reason to suggest that what exploded somewhere in B2/3 was not a jet fuel deflagration.

Allow me to bring up the "8 criteria" you brought up again. I think this is as good a time as any to point out an important matter. I've made my point to parts of this already but this should condense it a bit.

below is 8 characteristics of the first basement explosion. reverberations of the steel structure cannot possibly explain or account for all of these characteristics Grizzly that means that logically it should be abandoned in favour of a better alternative that can explain all these characteristics.

1 - had a loud explosion
2 - caused the building to shake
3 - produced smoke
4 - produced incredible wind
5 - produced structural damage
6 - people running and screaming
7 - knocked people over
8 - burnt people

instead of conceding and admiting that reverberations were not the cause of the first basement explosion unfortunately you continue on an obvious and futile pattern of evasion.

In response to the following statement you said:

•First of all it is noted that you are not disputing my claim i.e. that the detoantion of an explosive device can indeed produce all the effects listed. So it is completely rational to propose that these effects could have been caused by an explosive.

Let's first begin specifically with your 8 points of criteria. You've presented two problems in you execution of argument:

• Affirming the consequent: What you've done here is presented criteria that you feel makes the case for explosives. And despite the extremely general nature of all of this criteria you assert that the only possible cause for such are pre-planted explosives.
  
  The problem here (aside from the fact that your criteria isn't specifically unique to pre-planted explosives) at all is that by arguing in favor for that you introduce numerous complexities. From why the conspirators would have detonated them in the first place long before the collapse, to timing the "explosions" almost exactly synchronized with the plane impacts, to why there were no injuries to people that are are specifically unique to explosives (IE ruptured ear drums, blast trauma, etc).
  
  You already justified not going into the former (the reasons behind detonating prematurely) because it's then subject greatly to speculation, yet you've already done so by attempting to use very ambiguous criteria and circumstantial "evidence" from witness testimony you've often taken at face value.
  
  Usually Occam's Razor would most easily explain things, and the plane impacts and many of the secondary effects explain the collective most easily
  
• 2nd point: Look at the list you posted. More than half of your criteria is completely ambiguous. The first time I looked at it I immediate thought "circular logic". Sure you can expect to find quite a few parallels if you consider them unique to a particular event but many are very easily associated with the original event; the plane impacts.
  
  People screaming, panicking, mass confusion, running for cover, structural damage, a large explosion, smoke, violent shaking of the entire structure, interior cosmetic damage, people sustaining burn injuries, people losing their footing from the impacts. Those aren't unique to explosives, and frankly I still don't think it's registered to you that the planes struck with the force of more than 2,000 pounds of TNT, and all of that energy got dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire building.

To explain; when you argued that the sound of the first basement explosion was caused by reverberations through the steel structure and you provided a video example of this occuring, that was a rational belief. But when I expanded my argument to include testimony that could not be explained by reverberations then the only way you could have held onto this ‘rational belief`would have been irrationally because you have no valid reasons or examples to argue that reverberations can produce incredible wind, smoke, and heat.

My point was exactly what was demonstrated in the crane collapse video. I don't consider the sounds emitted by the structure and the fire ball to be one in the same event. The two came from one common cause (and by common cause I am referring to that they were both secondary effects of having the planes slam into the building). It's obvious that you didn't understand that.

But my bone of contention is with your application of this statement to me. As explained everyone one of the 8 characteristics of the first basement explosion can be caused by the detonation of an explosive device. This fact you do not even dispute yourself. It is entirely plausible and rational to argue that it was in fact caused by an explosive.

In short: affirming the consequent
I've explained what I meant with this further up. I doubt you want me to repeat this in the same post, (though I do it anyways with other points)

Ok, you said:
<Insert my quote here>
but morelli said he “blown” over by the impact he did not fall because the building was shaking.

peace

The account I retrieved from an excerpt of his testimony is a s follows:

"The impact of the explosion or whatever happened threw me to the floor...You didn't know what it was, you just assumed something fell over in the loading dock. Something very heavy, something very big."


Dissect the quote, it's clear he doesn't refer using the same terminology you use. Or are you using a different quote source than I am? If so would you mind sharing it so I can have a peek?


EDIT: Om my... I should have searched before asking you for the source
It's the paragraph below the one I posted above. Let's expand on the excerpt you put up though:

"Phillip Morelli: "As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean, the impact of the explosion, of whatever happened, it threw me to the floor, and that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. Of course you didn't know what it was, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened, and all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving, and you get up, and the walls – and then, you know now I'm hearing that the main freight car, you know the elevators, fell down, so I was right near the main freight car, so I assume what that was. [Describing the same event] Then, you know, you heard that coming towards you, I was racing, I was going towards the bathrooms, you know, all of a sudden, and a big impact happened again, and all the ceiling tiles were falling down, the light fixtures falling, swinging out of the ceiling."

Going back to the exerpt you posting I think it's disingenuous to go solely based on one part of the statement. Yes he says "blown" but he as well described being knocked down which immediately contradicts your assertion that the movement of the building didn't knock him down. Then he describes hearing the freight cars falling down the shafts. It appears quite clearly to me this is all happening at the time of the plane impact.... his testimony also suggests he was fairly near the core region of the structure (the elevators and stair cases were all within the core of the building. I am under the impression that his proximity to the region in question would have resulted in at least some level of injury (if not fatal) had there been preplanted explosives going off

Sorry it's long winded but I like to dissect what I'm responding to.

 

[thewholesoul]

Sorry it's long winded but I like to dissect what I'm responding to.

can you please just outline in clear terms what do you believe caused the first basement explosion. was it:

(a) shockwave
(b) falling debris
(c) unignited jet fuel
(d) a fireball

or perhaps a combination of the above.

peace
p.s. i will address your post in time.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What he or anyone thinks is irrelevant, they are opinions. What you are trying to do is get the topic to be about opinions so you can pretend your opinion is more valid. All o this is to hide the fact that you have absolutely no evidecne what so ever for your bombs in the basement conspiracy theory.

And what makes it worse is that when normal people actually look at it as a whole, they can too easily see how absolutely absurd and pointless the whole idea of bombs are. So not only are you trying to promote a theory with no evidence, but also one that makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

 

[thewholesoul]

I'm talking about the sound, that could be associated in metaphorical terms with that of an explosion. Please do not make the mistake of assuming I'm claim such would be the explosion.

You were talking about sound, the sound that was heard by the individuals on B1, that you argued was caused by reverberations in the steel structure. You know what i am saying is true so i dont need to quote your previous statements. your above statement is just more evasion.

Once again never claimed the reverberations of the steel structure caused such phenomena. The effect of the plane impacts on the structure and the other resulting physical effects would have been separate events. Once again, don't mistake my intentions.

This is getting really silly grizzly, we have been exchanging posts for i dont know how long on what caused the sound heard below those on B1. you argued it was caused for reverberations in the steel struture and i argued against. One of my arguments against your position was to cite the testimony of Salvatore Giambanco. And of course you never claimed that smoke and wind was created by reverberations because 1) you ignored his testimony + 2) if you used his testimony you could have nolonger argued your case.

I am not mistaking your intentions i want to know what they are? I am beginning to wonder because you refuse to even outline your position and where i come from i need to know your position in order to argue against it. Claiming “The effect of the plane impacts on the structure and the other resulting physical effects would have been separate events” is just another vague sentence. Are unable to specify what the effects of the plane crash were?

I'm assuming you must be talking about the exterior columns? It's not terribly surprising as they're experiencing a range of dynamical forces during collapse progression.

Incorrect assumption.

Just to add to the clarification the "spire" that remained was in fact the remainer of the interior core columns.

Correct columns 700 and 800, which were the structurally weakest columns. But i dont want to derail the ongoing basement explosion discussion.

I'm not arguing in favor of any explosion in the basement I'm arguing the the secondary effects of the planeimpacts…so I'm not quite sure what you're claiming here... The only point I've ever asserted to argue, and the point I suspect Norseman was trying to make to you was the sound made by the structure in reaction to the impacts. The fireballs and the direct impact-related reaction of the structure are two separate components originating from one common cause.

So you dispute the official explanation for the basement explosion then? Was a fuel deflagration in the basement a secondary effect of the plane impact? You suspicions of Norsemans argument are unfounded, i suggest you go read his posts more thoroughly. The “sound” made by the structure in reaction to the imapcts was YOUR ARGUMENT in relation to the “explosion” heard by individuals on B1 including Salvatore Giambanco. I agree that the fireballs and reverberations through the steel structure are separate events.

Let's first begin specifically with your 8 points of criteria. You've presented two problems in you execution of argument:
•Affirming the consequent: What you've done here is presented criteria that you feel makes the case for explosives. Wrong. i have cited witness testimony who experienced certain events, events i might add that can also be used to make the case for a fuel deflagration (i.e. the official hypothesis) And despite the extremely general nature of all of this criteria you assert that the only possible cause for such are pre-planted explosives. Wrong. I am willing to entertain and debate any explanation for the first basement explosion. The official explanation is arguably another possible explanation.
The problem here (aside from the fact that your criteria isn't specifically unique to pre-planted explosives) i never siad it was unique, i said that its a fact that the detonation of an explosive device can account for all these criteria. is that by arguing in favor for that you introduce numerous complexities. From why the conspirators would have detonated them in the first place long before the collapse, lets stick to the facts and leave the specualtion for a later day to timing the "explosions" almost exactly synchronized with the plane impacts, could be easily carried out to why there were no injuries to people that are are specifically unique to explosives (IE ruptured ear drums, blast trauma, etc). Proximity to the detonation can explain this. In post 377 i outlined numerous events that can only be explained by a detonation because a fuel deflagration does not have the force. You already justified not going into the former (the reasons behind detonating prematurely) because it's then subject greatly to speculation, correct yet you've already done so by attempting to use very ambiguous criteria and circumstantial "evidence" from witness testimony you've often taken at face value. Wrong. The testimony is not amibiguous – it is a fact, not fiction, that felipe’s skin was burnt off his face; it is a fact, not fiction, that salvatore saw incredible winds, smoke; it is a fact, not fiction, that they heard a loud explosion etc i am looking for someone to join me in a discussion as to the CAUSE behind these FACTS.

Usually Occam's Razor would most easily explain things, and the plane impacts and many of the secondary effects explain the collective most easily well if you just stopped making sweeping statements and debated your position against mine as opposed to dodging one then we can reach a conclusion on whether they can “easily” explain the first basement explosion or not.

•2nd point: Look at the list you posted. More than half of your criteria is completely ambiguous. Wrong. These are unambiguous facts, not fiction. The first time I looked at it I immediate thought "circular logic". Why? Sure you can expect to find quite a few parallels if you consider them unique i dont consider them unique to a particular event but many are very easily associated with the original event; the plane impacts. People screaming, panicking, mass confusion, running for cover, structural damage, a large explosion, smoke, violent shaking of the entire structure, interior cosmetic damage, people sustaining burn injuries, people losing their footing from the impacts. What burnt felipe? What prodided the smoke and wind in salvatore’s testimony? Are you just going to keep repeating “they are all consistent with the plane crash” ad infinitum without engaging in a critical debate with myself? Are you afraid of losing? Those aren't unique to explosives, never said they were and frankly I still don't think it's registered to you that the planes struck with the force of more than 2,000 pounds of TNT, wrong and all of that energy got dispersed and transmitted throughout the entire building. More vague ambiguous language. Please state clearly what is your explanation in relation to the first basement explosion. My point was exactly what was demonstrated in the crane collapse video. I don't consider the sounds emitted by the structure and the fire ball to be one in the same event. Great. Now can you tell me how the fireball reached felipe? The two came from one common cause (and by common cause I am referring to that they were both secondary effects of having the planes slam into the building). It's obvious that you didn't understand that. Please dont insult my intelligence amigo.

In short: affirming the consequent.

Let me just substitute your hypothesis with mine and place it in the statement you repsonded to:

But my bone of contention is with your application of this statement to me. As explained everyone one of the 8 characteristics of the first basement explosion can be caused by the impact of a commercial jet and the secondary effects. It is entirely plausible and rational therefore to argue that these 8 characteristcis were in fact caused by the impact of a plane and the secondary effects.

now what would you think if I responded to this statement with “in short: affirming the consequence”?

as for morelli’s testimony its getting late but lets just say i disagree.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Still no evidence of bombs eh?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You were talking about sound, the sound that was heard by the individuals on B1, that you argued was caused by reverberations in the steel structure. You know what i am saying is true so i dont need to quote your previous statements. your above statement is just more evasion.

You are intentionally trying to construe my position as if I claim the impact effects on the steel also led to the fireball. I've made clear I'm not making such a claim. I ask that you not attempt to twist my words, such argumentation ttactics have no place here.

1) you ignored his testimony + 2) if you used his testimony you could have nolonger argued your case.

No I did not, but if you insist on arguing semantics his testimony corroborates the added effects of the plane crash.

Claiming “The effect of the plane impacts on the structure and the other resulting physical effects would have been separate events” is just another vague sentence.

The plane struck the towers, do you somehow expect there not to be secondary and tertiary effects? The kinetic energy absorbed by the towers had to be transferred somewhere granted that the buildings withstood them. I've made my position already, the collective is compatible with the plane impacts.

Incorrect assumption.

I see, I apoligize for this misunderstanding, I take responsibility for misreading that excerpt

So you dispute the official explanation for the basement explosion then?

Wasn't it obvious?

Was a fuel deflagration in the basement a secondary effect of the plane impact?

I would argue that it'd have been an indirect result of the plane impact. Be it secondary, tertiary, or otherwise.

You suspicions of Norsemans argument are unfounded, i suggest you go read his posts more thoroughly. The “sound” made by the structure in reaction to the imapcts was YOUR ARGUMENT

Incorrect, I am arguing the same as him; however he writes the explanation much more concisely than I do.

As should be evident from my post #499 there is no need for any jet fuel or your fantasy bombs to explain the first "explosion" heard by Felipe David and other witnesses in the basement levels of WTC 1. In all likelihood the first thing they heard and felt was the impact of Flight 11 itself transfered through the structure, just like numerous other witnesses on all levels of WTC 1 (see post #499 for links). That would be the first "explosion" they heard.

The tower was impacted a by 128 000 kg aircraft at a speed of 200 m/s. Sound travels through structural steel with a speed of about 4500 m/s. So 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 floor he was standing on, something that easily would lead him to believe that the "explosion" occurred below him.

i never siad it was unique, i said that its a fact that the detonation of an explosive device can account for all these criteria.

Yes but your criteria is very ambiguous. Not one is unique, they were all observed phenomena of the plane impacts. Why don't you point out one trait that is unique to explosives? Would you not agree that including unique traits of explosives that are less obvious would help your argument?

stick to the facts and leave the specualtion for a later day

You're asking me to refrain from the speculation yet you speculate yourself? Just what is your standard?

could be easily carried out

Every action leading up to implementing this is speculation.

Proximity to the detonation can explain this. In post 377

Yet one of your witnesses describes walking near the express elevator shaft in the basement level. The elevators were located in the core of the building I hope you've not forgotten.

i outlined numerous events that can only be explained by a detonation because a fuel deflagration does not have the force.

I don't expect deflageration to explain all physical damage. It was not the only factor to consider with regard to physical damage. Since you do not understand this it looks like Ill literally have to draw this out for you.

Wrong. The testimony is not amibiguous

No, you treat the eye witness testimony as absolute, and draw out context from them that isn't there. In addition, you listed all of this criteria:

1 - had a loud explosion
2 - caused the building to shake
3 - produced smoke
4 - produced incredible wind
5 - produced structural damage
6 - people running and screaming
7 - knocked people over
8 - burnt people

Which I stated could draw parallels but deals with nothing unique to explosives. If anything everything unique to the plane impacts and effects are present, and none of the unique aspects of explosives that would immediately queue people in are present.

1) the building was hit by a plane, it doesn't get much simpler than that. The plane hit with the energy equivalent of more than 2000 pounds of TNT. That is going to be heard. Sound travels at a finite speed varying with temperature and medium.

2) The entire building shook from the impact. The top of the North tower was estimated to have deviated upwards of 20 inches off its center of gravity. The towers are analogous to a vertically cantilevered beam, the ground acts as a fulcrum, where do you think that kinetic energy gets transferred once it enters the building?
The violent shaking caused by the planes hitting the towers accounts for nearly all of the damage to the interior, and numerous witnesses corroborate this.

3) Large fires will give off smoke, loose material gets forced out. WHatever the case, you attribute this to explosive when it's every bit as attributable to the impact event. Smoke is not a unique trait to either

4) Overpressure from air being forced down the shafts during the impact. And no, I don't attribute it to all of the physical damage.

5) Sub-component of my response to criteria #2. The transfer of kinetic energy and associated dynamic forces imparted by the plane impacts accounts for nearly all of this.

6) People running and screaming... well what would you do if you just saw a jet liner ram into a skyscraper? My first inclination would be to not remain directly underneath it.

7) Sub-componet of #2 & #5. The impact effects of the plane were not localized, they were felt significantly throughout the towers.

8) burnt people, not entirely surprising, the elevator shafts in the core were breached by a large quantity of jet fuel that just poured down them at ignition temperatures. I can't claim I have the knowledge or expertise to explain this one away, nor will I assume I can, but the collective 7 criteria you set forth are all from the initial impact event or had originated from it.

– it is a fact, not fiction, that felipe’s skin was burnt off his face; it is a fact, not fiction, that salvatore saw incredible winds, smoke; it is a fact, not fiction, that they heard a loud explosion etc i am looking for someone to join me in a discussion as to the CAUSE behind these FACTS.

I'm not denying any of those, but you are stuck on this notion the only explosives can explain the criteria you posted or the injuries sustained by witnesses. I did notice that you agree at least partially which my contentions regarding your criteria, but for the rest you are attributing them to explosives like a religion.

And I'm not wrong, you really do take witness accounts at face value. You can't seem to associate plane impact event with the natural chaos that would follow from such an event. This is why your arguments do not convince me.

Wrong. These are unambiguous facts, not fiction

Your presentation of them as evidence is however. I'm demonstrating to you that explosives are not necessary to explain them.

Why?

See above

i dont consider them unique

Then look for unique characteristics of explosives that cannot be attritbuted to either/or. Explosive residue odors for example, shrapnel injuries, and other unique attributes. It would go a long way to forward your case.

What burnt felipe?

fire from potentially ignited jet fuel, or even the air being forced down by the impact and explosion of the plane in the upper floors. Felipe obviously did not recieve shrapnel injuries or ear drum ruptures from blast events.

What prodided the smoke and wind in salvatore’s testimony?[/quite]
Accounted for by air being forced down the shafts as the impacts prgressed, and loose material being knocked loose, and combustibles. That would be the gist of things.

Are you just going to keep repeating “they are all consistent with the plane crash” ad infinitum without engaging in a critical debate with myself? Are you afraid of losing?

Critical debate relies on the presentation and interpretation of facts, and your ability to connect them together.

You bring up testimony, you bring up facts, but you neither interpret them nor apply critical thinking to the event to apply your conclusion. This has nothing to do with winning or losing the debate.

never said they were [unique to explosives]

Context added for clarity. No you did not, but I've stated my point to this already in one of my above responses

Please dont insult my intelligence amigo

No insult intended, you just don't understand the point I am making. If you feel that it was intended to act as an insult then by all means report it and if I'm reprimanded for it then that's my problem to deal with, not yours.

Let me just substitute your hypothesis with mine and place it in the statement you repsonded to:

now what would you think if I responded to this statement with “in short: affirming the consequence”?

If they are both attributable to your criteria then why bring them up as your primary argument in the first place? You're arguing in favor of an event independent of the plane impacts and then basing your primary arguments on exactly what was observed in a plane crash witnessed by millions of people.

I know it's hard for you to not use those criteria to convey your point but find something unique to explosives not material which is attributed to both. Because at this point I haven't seen any real evidence from you aside from analous comparisons.

 

[thewholesoul]

sorry for delay, been busy.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul
So you dispute the official explanation for the basement explosion then?

Wasn't it obvious?

So you dont believe that the first basement explosion was the result of a fuel deflagration. I am glad you clarified that.

You later confirm that your position is the very same as Norseman who wrote:

In all likelihood the first thing they heard and felt was the impact of Flight 11 itself transfered through the structure...That would be the first "explosion" they heard

Let us assume that the explosion heard by Felipe David and Salvatore Giambanco was in fact a soundwave/shockwave from the impact of flight 11 passing through the steel struture of the building; if so, then how do we explain the fact that immediately following this explosion Felipe was burnt and Salvatore witnessed smoke and incredible winds?

“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”.

"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.

Thus, because a shockwave cannot possibly produce the intense heat and smoke associated with the first basement explosion reason demands that we abandon this explanation and seek an alternative. Its that simple Grizzly.

Further down in your post you do finally address the possible causes behind the smoke and intense heat decribed in the testimony of Felipe and Salvatore. You write:

3) Large fires will give off smoke, loose material gets forced out.

Let us assume that the smoke seen by Salvatore was the result of a burning piece of material that fell down the elevator shaft from the impact zone; if so, then how do we explain the explosion he heard just prior to the smoke?

You will of course reply that this was casued by the shockwave...but a shockwave travels at 4500m/s so it would have arrived at B1 almost instantly, the falling debris would have arrived approx. 10 seconds afterwards but any reasonable interpretation of Salvatore’s testimony would conclude that the smoke was seen immediatly after the explosion was heard, not 10 seconds after.

Moreover, assuming that a burning piece of debris was the cause of the smoke seen on B1 then how come the smoke was not seen on B4? It stands to reason that if a burning piece of debris falling down the elevator shaft could somehow send smoke through a closed elevator shaft door on B1 then it would have done so on B4 and all the way down the building for that matter. But because Philip Morelli who was walking beside the elevator shaft door on B4 did not report seeing any smoke reason demands that you abandon this explanation and seek an alternative.

In relation to the burn injuries described by Felipe, you write:

8) burnt people, not entirely surprising, the elevator shafts in the core were breached by a large quantity of jet fuel that just poured down them at ignition temperatures. I can't claim I have the knowledge or expertise to explain this one away,

You see this is why you dont understand the implications of your own position. You argue that the explosion heard by Felipe was caused by a shockwave, (which you yourself recognize as not being the official explanation) then you argue that what burnt Felipe was a fuel deflagration (which is the official explanation) but what you continually fail to understand is that it cannot possibly be both.

The shockwave would have reached Felipe almost instantly and the unignited jet fuel would take approximately 30 seconds but any reasonable interpretation of Felipe’s testimony would conclude that he was burnt almost immediately after he heard the explosion below him. I cover this in my post #430.

Now because a shockwave cannot possibly account for the burn injuries recieved by Felipe let us turn our attention to the official explanation.

What is so powerful about the argument in post 430 is that you dont need to be an expert to understand it. Its quite simple. The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1. We know this because Philip Morelli heard an explosion and was blown to the ground BEFORE he heard the elevator car falling. You yourself recognize this because after he heard the explosion and was blown to the ground you wrote:

Then he describes hearing the freight cars falling down the shafts.

So we are in agreement thus far.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the first basement explosion heard by Philip Moreli and responsible for blowing him to the ground on B4 was the same explosion heard by Felipe David and responsible for burning his skin off on B2. That means that whatever burnt Felipe had to have occured BELOW car 50 and BEFORE the freight elevator car reached B1.

Now we know that the jet fuel began its descent at the same time the freight elevator cables were cut. This means that the jet fuel had to have passed car 50 and explode BEFORE the freight elevator car reached B1.

Freight elevator car 50 had to fall approximately 17 floors and the jet fuel had to fall 95 floors. A freight elevator falling 17 floor at free fall will take approximately 10 seconds to reach B1; droplets of liquid jet fuel falling 95 floors at 9m/s will take approximately 30 seconds (taking over pressure into account) therefore whatever exploded BELOW car 50 and BEFORE it reached B1 could not POSSIBLY have been caused by unignited jet fuel.

Now maybe you want to change your argument and say it was an expanding fireball from the impact zone that caused the first basement explosion responsible for Felipe’s burn injuries. Again the same argument applies.

The initial fireball was estimated by NIST to expand at 27m/s, at this velocity it could not possibly have passed free falling car 50 and then explode below Felipe on B2.

Now maybe you want to tinker with the velocity of the expanding fireball and say that it could have passed car 50 – then you have to explain how the occupants inside car 50 did not detect a fireball passing over the elevator car.

Now if what burnt Felipe was not the result of a shockwave, falling debris, unignited jet fuel, or a fireball from the impact zone – and you concede that the 8 associated effects of the first basement are consistent with the detonation of an explsoive device then by the process of elimination and common sense we can conclude that what burnt Felipe was a preplanted explosive because it is the only possible explanation.

.....unless you have some counter argument worth hearing?

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Still no evidence of bombs?

 

[thewholesoul]

Still no evidence of bombs?

my dear friend johney clueless.

its not enough for people like you to see steel framed skyscrapers explode in front of your eyes, to count as evidence!

its not enough that the chemical signature of commercial thermite was found in the WTC dust!

Its not enough to find molten metal within the rubble pile of all three towers!
i have debunked every explanation for the first basement explosion and you are unable to counter my arguments in an intelligent way yet you still believe in the official lie?

i challenge you to counter my arguments but you are too afraid you’ll look silly
but i have three words for you my friend - CAUSE and EFFECT.

I counted 10 effects of the basement explosion:
(1) sound of an explosion (2) building shaking (3) structural damage (4) smoke (5) winds (6) people thrown to ground (7) people running and screaming (8) burn injuries (9) broken limbs (10) people killed

ALL of these EFFECTS can be CAUSED – very easily – by the detonation of an explosive device. This is not my opinion, this is a fact.

In post 377 i made a further argument and demonstated the hipocrite that you sometimes are. I asked you what would count as evidence in your opinion and you kindly replied:

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

So with this standard in mind i looked through the testimony to find something that can ONLY be caused by an explosive...

“There was nothing there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. “We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.” From: "We Will Not Forget: A Day of Terror," The Chief Engineer, July, 2002.

Now because you believe in the official lie you must consequently believe that the steel and concrete fire door was crumbled up like tinfoil because of a fuel deflagration.

But a fuel deflagration does not have the overpressure to CAUSE this EFFECT. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Deputy Chief Dunn who outlines the effects destructive peak pressure:

GLASS SHATTERING : 0.5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE: 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE: 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE: 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99 FATALITIES: 99 PSI

Now in this thread the big brain on bread Mackey estimates the energy produced by a jet fuel deflagration in the basement, he states

we want to overestimate the energy requirement to make absolutely certain that my contention -- that the jet fuel is more than sufficient -- is true. We will use the higher, less credible estimate of 5 PSI.

so Mackey over-estimates the energy of a fuel deflagration at 5psi.

So when we go back to the list provided by Deputy Chief Dunn we find that a a fuel deflagration could destroy a cinderblock wall, it could damage but not destroy a brick wall. Here is a photo of a brick wall clueless http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/brick-wall.html

now a steel and concrete fire wall is stronger than a brick wall that means to destroy a steel and conrete firewall the energy released from the fuel deflagration must exceed 5psi. But we know that this is impossible.

Therefore whatever caused the steel and conrete firewall to be crumbled up like tinfoil

can ONLY be caused by bombs, thus rulling out everything else

.

This reasoning also applies to the pile of dead bodies found in the lobby as well as numerous other effects i outlined in post 377.

Peace and i look forward to your response.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just some nitpicks, I'll address your other response once I get home.

its not enough for people like you to see steel framed skyscrapers explode in front of your eyes, to count as evidence!

Hyperboles are really unnecessary... Anytime somebody says the building "exploded" in mid collapse they don't know what they are talking about and their credibility in their capacity to make a case is called into serious question.

its not enough that the chemical signature of commercial thermite was found in the WTC dust!

Presence of such signatures would be at best inconclusive given that the towers contained the same material components of the incendiary.

Its not enough to find molten metal within the rubble pile of all three towers!

Of which only two samples out of the entire rubble pile, were ever recovered.

You must have been in a rush in asking him the questions... (of which were all repeats). I'll elaborate in the next couple of hours as of this moment I don't have sufficient time to address everything.

 

[R.Mackey]

Since you invoked me, it falls to me to refute you, again.

A steel fire door is not the same as a steel-and-concrete wall as you claim above.

5 PSI will easily crumple your average fire door.

Nobody was killed due to overpressure. This proves the overpressure was under 5 PSI.

Testimony, by its very definition, cannot be evidence that exclusively points to bombs. Anything that someone thinks one sees, explosions, fireballs, whatever, can have multiple explanations.

Does Mr. Pecoraro, today, believe there were bombs in the basement? Yes or no?

 

[twinstead]

A serious question, thewholesoul: How can it be claimed that chemical signature of commercial thermite was found in the WTC dust when it could has just as well been the chemical signature of non thermite substances that were already known to be in the WTC? It makes no sense to me to even have the guts to use that as an argument.

What kind of an investigator are you? (don't tell me. You're the kind that accepts what Steven Jones says no questions asked, right?)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The wholesoul, nothing you listed, including the parts which are simply false claims that the crackpots have made up, is evidence of bombs. In fact many of the things you list as evidence are the very things that disprove bombs.

Perhaps you can show us a bomb that leaves molten metal for months afterwords? Just one example would be fine. How about a plane impact that doesn't cause an explosion? Hoe about building dust which doesn't have the same traces as can be found in thermite?

You counted 10 effects that describe an explosion, NOT the cause of the explosion. This is where you are being completely dishonest and fraudulent.

And again, all your testimony describes explosions. Explosions completely consistent with the damage and impacts of the planes.

Please show us evidence that this was caused by bombs. You can't do it and you know it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

if so, then how do we explain the fact that immediately following this explosion Felipe was burnt and Salvatore witnessed smoke and incredible winds?

Immediately after is a subjective term, however, I don't see anything strange at all with the order in which they were experienced:

Impact sound would have reached the basement level almost instantaneously, the fireball and any smoke would follow after the fact.

Thus, because a shockwave cannot possibly produce the intense heat and smoke associated with the first basement explosion reason demands that we abandon this explanation and seek an alternative. Its that simple Grizzly.

I'm confused as to why you keep bringing this up. Can you please enlighten me as to why this is a relevant argument when I am claiming no such thing?

Let us assume that the smoke seen by Salvatore was the result of a burning piece of material that fell down the elevator shaft from the impact zone; if so, then how do we explain the explosion he heard just prior to the smoke?

I've already explained this to you. The building is absorbing the kinetic energy imparted by the planes on impact. Given that they stood against the impacts the forces would have necessarily been transferred throughout the building's infrastructure and down to the foundation. With the entire building acting as a medium the impact alone is enough to explain what he felt.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

but a shockwave travels at 4500m/s so it would have arrived at B1 almost instantly, the falling debris would have arrived approx. 10 seconds afterwards but any reasonable interpretation of Salvatore’s testimony would conclude that the smoke was seen immediatly after the explosion was heard, not 10 seconds after.

The shockwave would have reached Felipe almost instantly and the unignited jet fuel would take approximately 30 seconds but any reasonable interpretation of Felipe’s testimony would conclude that he was burnt almost immediately after he heard the explosion below him. I cover this in my post #430.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And you are assigning a time frame based on a subjective term. I'm not sure sure where you get this claim of immediately after as being "X" amount of time under 10 seconds... The testimony he gives says nothing about the timing, only that the smoke followed after the impact sound he heard, some witness did not report seeing any smoke for as long as 30 seconds after hearing/feeling the initial effects of the plane impact. I included the testimony of a witness who did give a rough estimate of the time in the excerpt following this one for Edward McCabe.

Gravy posted this a while back: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

In the taped interview, (Salvatore) Giambanco told Gurisatti, the Colombian reporter:

"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. I had just gotten off the elevator and I was standing by it with another man but didn't know his name.

"The doors of the elevator were still open and, I don't know why we did, but we both jumped back in maybe because of the wind whipping everything around in the hallway. "Then, suddenly, the elevator doors closed in front of us and we started going down. It all of a sudden stopped and I could see through the cracks we were between B-2 and B-3. We were both screaming and afraid. I remember seeing through the slot of the elevator and seeing other people running and screaming.

"Then water started gushing in the elevator and I remember saying, 'God, please help us.' At that point, I was resigned to the fact I was going to die"

But like a miracle, Giambanco's plea to God was answered as all of a sudden he heard someone yelling from above, "How many people are down there?"

The miracle above turned out to be Rodriguez who had returned into the WTC after helping David to safety in order to help others after disobeying police orders to remain outside.

"I remember rushing past police, telling them to go to hell as I was going back to help my friends no matter what," recalls Rodriguez about his basement search for survivors before eventually only making his way to the 39th floor before being turned back in a desperate attempt to reach the top floors.

In the basement, Rodriguez managed to find a construction ladder, miraculously lowering it into the elevator after courageously entering the darkened shaft and opening the top hatch on the elevator where Giambanco and the other unidentified man now were standing thigh-deep in water from the broken or activated sprinkler system spewing water into the elevator shaft.

But because Philip Morelli who was walking beside the elevator shaft door on B4 did not report seeing any smoke reason demands that you abandon this explanation and seek an alternative.

Edward McCabe was on the same floor level. May I suggest reviewing testimony from whoever you can find that was on those floors?

Edward McCabe, building engineer, describes blast at Turner Construction's Field Office in the tower core. (divided into paragraphs for legibility, spelling and grammar left as is): 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.

I later on found out the reason there was an explosion was the jet fuel filled the elevator shaft and seconds later a spark triggered an explosion. i stood at the bottom of this staircase wondering what happened. seconds later through the smoke came people who worked beyond that door for the construction company. they were all secrataries, they walked like zombies not speaking I can smell their burnt flesh. one was bleeding pretty bad and i started to walk her to path train station accross the plant. 1 woman seemed unharmed and i asked her what happened. she told me a bomb blew up their offices.

when we got to the PATH platform i layed the woman down, she thanked me, and i returned to the blown door to see if i could find anyone else. Sure enough there were more, the smoke was being sucked up the shaft now and i can see there were no longer any walls just rubble. 1 woman was under her desk refusing to come out. after a little coaxing she came and at this point a few of my colleuges, were sifting through the rubble, trying to find anybody. we did about 3 trips. everyone was out.

You see this is why you dont understand the implications of your own position. You argue that the explosion [sound] heard by Felipe was caused by a shockwave, (which you yourself recognize as not being the official explanation)??????? then you argue that what burnt Felipe was a fuel deflagration (which is the official explanation) but what you continually fail to understand is that it cannot possibly be both.

I don't think you understand my position period. I've been arguing that the sound he heard was a result of the plane impact and the sound traversing the building's infrastructure, The fire ball is a separate event which followed the sound...

Again you're implying that my argument tries to construe the two as one event, that's one hell of a non-sequitor...

Now because a shockwave cannot possibly account for the burn injuries recieved by Felipe let us turn our attention to the official explanation.

Once again... why in the hell are you saying this when I'm not arguing this? Try refuting me on a point which I am arguing please...

What is so powerful about the argument in post 430 is that you dont need to be an expert to understand it. Its quite simple. The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1. We know this because Philip Morelli heard an explosion and was blown to the ground BEFORE he heard the elevator car falling. You yourself recognize this because after he heard the explosion and was blown to the ground you wrote: So we are in agreement thus far.

Uhhhh... noooooo......... That entire post is a serious case of confirmation bias on your part... And this goes back to my earlier response in this post regarding the "explosion" felippe felt. Recall? The building serving as a medium for all of the impact forces to be transmitted to the ground? The entire order of events you detail in your own post tells me everything I need to know... it's consistent with the plane impacts... You actually weaken your own claim

The initial fireball was estimated by NIST to expand at 27m/s, at this velocity it could not possibly have passed free falling car 50 and then explode below Felipe on B2.

That's because there was no such bomb detonation below the elevator car. What they felt instead was the impact of the plane as it happened.

and you concede that the 8 associated effects of the first basement are consistent with the detonation of an explosive device then by the process of elimination and common sense we can conclude that what burnt Felipe was a preplanted explosive because it is the only possible explanation.

There is no process of elimination here, all you did was present eight characteristics that appear in both the plane impact event, and the detonation of explosives. You then affirmed the consequent by completely separating events from the plane impacts... here's an example of how thick you are in regards to understanding this:

i challenge you to counter my arguments but you are too afraid you’ll look silly
but i have three words for you my friend - CAUSE and EFFECT.

I counted 10 effects of the basement explosion:
(1) sound of an explosion (2) building shaking (3) structural damage (4) smoke (5) winds (6) people thrown to ground (7) people running and screaming (8) burn injuries (9) broken limbs (10) people killed

ALL of these EFFECTS can be CAUSED – very easily – by the detonation of an explosive device. This is not my opinion, this is a fact.

Do you even read what you post out here? It's as if the moment you bring these up, the plane impacts disappear like magic! You seem to enjoy distancing yourself from that little detail, in particular because multiple causes you affirm to be the result of an explosion are nothing more than the effects of the plane crash... I'm still baffled as to why you use such bloody blindingly obvious criteria which are overwhelmingly alone explained enough by the plane impact...

and then you regressed back to some of the older insane comments I responded to earlier in my last post...

ummm.... good luck.... I think you need to clarify your criteria list, or how you approach it... because your criteria for what proves bombs, in the face of a structure that received the impact of what is equivalent to several thousand pounds of TNT, is an incredibly strange approach....

 

[thewholesoul]

Since you invoked me, it falls to me to refute you, again.

Again?

A steel fire door is not the same as a steel-and-concrete wall as you claim above.

True, that was an error – i was meant to say steel and concrete fire door, not wall. thanks for pointing out that minor detail.

5 PSI will easily crumple your average fire door.

You can prove that with examples? Because i was under the illusion that a steel and concrete fire door was made of stronger material than a brick wall and to cause a brick wall to collapse a 7-8 psi is required [according to Deputy Chief Dunn]

Nobody was killed due to overpressure. This proves the overpressure was under 5 PSI.

Proximity. If an explosive detonates and there are walls and ceilings between you and the explosion the overpressure itself will not kill you but the walls and ceiling falling and collapsing will. People had broken limbs and some were even killed within the WTC basement or have you forgotten? Philip Morelli:

"I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got re-constructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face”.

Interestingly, it is worth noting that this was also the main reason why people in the 1993 bombing were killed.

Your above argument is not unlike the often cited “no tympanic membrane rupture” argument, that is, because no-one suffered a tympanic membrane rupture (burst eardrums) in the 2001 attack that therefore this proves that the explosion in the basement was a deflagration and not a detonation. But no-one suffered a tympanic membrane rupture in the 1993 attack so does that mean that the 1993 basment bomb was also a deflagration? So proximity my friend can easily counter your above agument. You can read the injuries of 1993 and 2001 terrorist attacks here: http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf

Now when we go to the lobby we have many other effects that indicate a possible detonation. Body parts were blown off and there was a pile of dead bodies [Firefighter William Green]. Now according to Deputy Chief Dunn fatalities require an overpressure greater than your overestimate of 5 psi. perhaps you can explain why these people were killed from a fuel deflagration?

The following are a list of backdraft or deflagrations that hit firefighters at close proximity.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_u-eAq5QU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaIilh_7nFI&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cH79ePz_l8&feature=related

As far as i can tell there are no body parts being blown off or fatalities. But your telling me that a deflagration is what killed those people in the lobby?

Then there is Bill Pekrol who

“sustained fuel burns on the dorsal sides of both hands and suffered three skull fractures, a crushed knee, a broken jaw, burned corneas, and a lacerated abdomen that required 200 stitches to close. His injuries were sustained from steel beams that were blowing apart.

can a fuel deflagration blow steel beams apart?

Then there is Ed McCabe’s account, for the door to be blown off its hinges from where he was located that means that the fuel deflagration originating from the elevator shaft 6+7 had to have blown down 3 walls consecutively before it could reach the door he was beside. This argument is made by Hardlines http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3206011&postcount=54 and i have yet to hear a plausible response.

In addition to this problem it would be nice if you could explain why the ‘deflagration’ that blew down 3 consecutive walls and the door beside Ed McCabe took the path of most resistance thereby violating the natural behaviour of all known deflagrations?

Testimony, by its very definition, cannot be evidence that exclusively points to bombs. Anything that someone thinks one sees, explosions, fireballs, whatever, can have multiple explanations.

In other words if testimony supports the official lie – use it; but if it contradicts the deflagration – it cannot be used as evidence.

Does Mr. Pecoraro, today, believe there were bombs in the basement? Yes or no?

I dont know

One final thing, since you endorse the unofficial jet fuel hypothesis:

What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts

fine, but given that the first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1 can you tell me how fuel droplets falling 90+ floors passed an elevator falling approximately 17 floors? Now of course jet fuel needs to be in vapour form in order to actually explode and vapour travels even slower than fuel droplets. so perhaps you can explain when and how the descending fuel droplets aerolized before exploding.

only if you can somehow manage to get that jet fuel down to the basement before car 50 reached B1 is there any need for your fantastic calculations.

peace

 

[twinstead]

in other words if testimony supports the official lie – use it; but if it contradicts the deflagration – it cannot be used as evidence.

oh the irony! It's not like you hand wave away any eye witnesses who support the official story or anything. I guess there must not be any, huh?