Yes, again. You just keep repeating the same crap over and over again.
everyone speaks crap, just with different shades of brown.
but remember you said this
One interesting scenario would be for jet fuel to "pool" on or around a large elevator, say the main freight elevator, about the time said elevator had its cables cut by the impact. The fuel would then fall
with the elevator at "virtually free-fall" speeds
, resulting in a fireball in the sublevels only a few seconds after impact.
your scenario was certainly interesting but it was also wrong because freight elevator car 50 only ascended to approximately 17 floors.
It's a pretty significant mistake.
It appears that we have a different understanding of significance then.
a wall is stronger than a door, dont be silly
i thought a steel and concrete "firedoor" was designed to withstand a blast from a “fire” not crumble up like tinfoil?
If you think lack of proximity is the issue, than you mean to say that they were all far enough away that the pressure was diminished. In other words, less than 5 PSI. Or, that closer to the site of your supposed bomb, that it was much higher. MUCH higher.
no what i was saying is that you were wrong to conclude that because no one died of direct overpressure that therefore the basement explosion was a deflagration and not a detonation. I proved you wrong by simply reminding you that in the 1993 basement bombing nobody died of direct overpressure either. To argue that proximity is a non-issue in determining whether someone is killed from overpressure or not is absurd.
Problem is, there is no evidence for these much higher pressures. As we've told you repeatedly
There are 8-10 effects associated with the first basement explosion for example the sound of the explosion, the smoke, building shaking, people running and screaming, incredible winds, people blown to the ground, burn victims et ctera.
ALL of these effects can be explained by the detonation of an explosive device. Correct? Now I dont need you to tell me whether this is true or not because i can look with my own eyes at the following link and see that indeed the detonation of an explosive device can produce ALL of these effects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Arqevz05Eo
But to make a disclaimer i am not suggesting that the explosives used in the madrid bombing were the same kind used in WTC. I am merely making the point that ALL the effects of the WTC basement explosion can be explained by the detonation of an explosive device.
If a plane did not hit the tower and i described to you the effects witnessed in the basement you would have no hesitation arriving at the conclusion that these effects were caused by the detonation of an explosive device.
Nope. The 1993 basement bomb was in an open area, and not a particularly high brisance to begin with. And nobody was close to it. In the WTC Towers, we have people so close they're actually getting burned by the fireball itself. The lack of "proximity" you think saves your stupidity doesn't exist.
There was no burst eardrums in 2001 just like in 1993. This is a fact. Your counter is that because some people got burnt by the basement explosion in 2001 that therefore they were in close proximity to the detonation and thus should have had their eardrums burst. But at the following link
http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf you will find numerous examples of terrorist bombs that burnt many victims yet did not – did not – burst their eardrums.
Ah, so now you've moved from the basement to the lobby. Sneaky.
Not sneaky its a public forum last time i checked.
i will stick to the basement then.
"Consecutively?" Total nonsense. There was fuel all over the place. And literally thousands of possible ignition points. You've ignored this since your first post here.
Yes consecutively the three walls between shaft 6 +7 and the door beside Ed McCabe had to be blown off as in one after the other progressively as the deflagration expanded. That is what you are suggesting happened and that is absurd.
And there wasnt fuel “all over the place” there were only three routes from the impact zone to the basement levels and you dont need to be reminded of this.
And how come we have All this fuel “all over the place” yet nobody in B1, 2 or 4 – nobody - reports smelling any? Jet fuel can be detected at 1ppm, quite an efficient deflagration wouldnt you agree?
The "path of most resistance" actually is where you expect to see the most damage. What it really means is that there is the most facing area presented to a pressure event, and hence, the most force. Take a physics class already.
You side step my point in your now characteristic condescending manner.
The point i was making is that a fuel deflagration will always seek the path of least resistance. Again i dont need you to tell whether this is true or not because i can see with my own eyes the following examples:
1.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=9
2.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=9
3.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
Now in relation to an elevator shaft, a fuel deflagration would naturally ascend upwards or downwards through the air within the elevator shaft [path of least resistance] next it would blow down the elevator shaft door [path of greater resistance] but the path of greatest resistance would be to blow down the elevator shaft itself and then 3 consecutive walls (one possibly being a masonary wall) to reach the office of Ed McCabe.
Now if you bothered to look at the link provided by Hardlines in post 109 of this thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...1&postcount=54 you would see the floorplan of B4. Notice that the elevator shaft door is facing in the opposite direction to where Ed McCabes office was located. In respect to his office shaft 6 and 7 are the only means by which jet fuel from the impact zone could come close to his location as the freight elevator shaft was even further away.
In order for the hinges to be blown off the door of Ed McCabes office the fuel deflagration must have violated the natural behaviour of expanding FAE’s because it travelled along the path of most resistance. And you have avoided addressing this point.
Interestingly the shaft pit of 6+7 ended in B4 yet no-one on B4 reported a fireball originating from this shaft? which suggests that whatever blew the door of Ed’s office did not originate from the elevator shafts. I am sure you can appreciate the implications of this fact.
That isn't what I said at all. Your propensity to attack and misconstrue is shameless.
Ouch
in response to the following statement
"The first basement explosion occurred below Car 50."
you said:
We have no way of knowing this. Since it was probably a volumetric event, it could have occurred both above and below Car 50, among myriad other possibilities...
Wrong we have a way of knowing, simply read the testimony of Philip Morelli its quite clear:
"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....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.
Given that he was walking by the freight elevator shaft and that we know that elevator car 50 did in fact fall down the elevator shaft it seems reasonable to any reasonable person that what he heard was – as he assumed – the freight elevator car falling. So the first basement explosion occured BEFORE car 50 reached B1.
We can establish
where the first basement explosion occured by including the testimony of Felipe David (aswell as everyone else on B1) who claims that the first basement explosion came from below. Now if Morelli on B4 says the explosion came from above and David on B1 claims that it came from below any reasonable person would conclude that the explosion occured on either the B2 or B3.
So because we know that car 50 came to a stop at B1/2 and it was heard still falling sometime AFTER the explosion we can say that the first basement explosion occured BELOW car 50 and BEFORE it reached B1.
There is nothing confusing about this apart from your efforts to insert your jargon “probably a volumetric event” as a means to confuse a straight forward matter of interpretating straight forward testimony.
In response to the following statement
“Vapour travels even slower than fuel droplets."
you said:
No. Vapor can be entrained. Could go faster, particularly if being sucked down an elevator shaft by a runaway elevator.
From my observations of the vapour from a kettle rises! So it is true to say that vapour would travel down an elevator shaft
slower than a fuel droplet. To claim otherwise is absurd.
But you are right to say that vapour can be entrained if being sucked down an elevator by a runaway elevator. The only problem however is that the freight elevator was at approximately floor 17 [read Arturo Griffiths testimony] so i seriously doubt that it could have exerted much, if any, suction on fuel vapour 75+ floors above it. But if you believe that vapour falls faster than fuel droplets down an elevator shaft then maybe it can!
Overpressure from the initial explosion forcing the vapour down would be a more plausible route if I were defending your position.
in response to the following statemet
"Perhaps you can explain when and how the descending fuel droplets aerolized [sic]"
you said:
A freaking plane crashed into a building at 0.8 Mach, and the leftovers fell 80+ stories. It has ample opportunity to aerosolize. I've explained this before.
No need for dramatics.
May I remind you that it is your argument that fuel droplets, not aerosolized fuel vapour, that fell down the shaft. Must I quote your own words over and over again? So to repeat
when and
how did these fuel droplets aerosolize in order to explode in the basement?
But its funny how when confronted on your fuel droplet hypothesis you then immediately switch to the aerosolized fuel. But here was what you said in the beginning of this thread – notice how you seem to ignore the “freaking plane crash”
We expect the
"droplets" of jet fuel to be much, much larger than rain droplets. The jet fuel is not all coalescing out of vapor phase. Instead, the droplet size will be driven by
Plateau-Rayleigh instability, which states that the droplet radius will be approximately equal to the radius of the original stream of fluid -- potentially quite large. Larger droplets would fall much faster. I would actually expect the rate of fuel travel to be limited by wetting effects on the sides of elevator shafts, rather than aerodynamic considerations. Not sure how to estimate this without conducting an experiment. In any event, the timing seems plausible to me.
So your advocating a “droplet” hypothesis. And it is important to note that the timing that seemed plausible for you was
30 seconds. But I over-estimate that freight car 50 falling 17 floors will take no more than 10 seconds. So that means that the “droplets” of jet fuel arriving at the basement in 30 seconds cannot POSSIBLY account for the first basement explosion. so why dont you go back and fiddle with some numbers, modify and change your current hypothesis and then get back to me.
In response to the following statement
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.
you respond:
Nope. We do not know when the explosion took place.
Why not because it DEBUNKS your hypothesis?
We have no way to reference the blast to the impact, since there was nobody who witnessed both events.
This is very simple, so stay tuned. You argue that the first basement explosion was caused by fuel droplets exploding. Now the plane crash did two things. First in severed the suspension cables of the freight elevator car and it dispersed fuel droplets down the shaft. an elevator car falling 17 floor will take nolonger than 10 seconds to reach B1. fuel droplets with a falltime of 30 seconds “seems reasonable” to you. That means that whatever exploded below car 50 and before it reached B1 could not POSSIBLY have been fuel droplets. Its time to do the rational thing and change your story amigo.
The sheer amount of noise in the structure, and the sheer number of noise sources, would have been extremely high.
Why try to confuse a simple matter. The fuel was deposited down the shafts at the same time the elevators cables were cut. You need to change your story.
One could write a book on logical fallacies from your posts. Apart from that, they have no value that I can determine. Consider yourself Ignored.
Well maybe you can determine this statement – your wrong.
peace
