Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly, come on do you not see how your interpretation of Salvatores testimony is absurd? It cannot be taken seriously.

Heres his testimony, once again:

Now here is your Liquorice allsorts explanation for what he witnessed:
[a] The sound of an explosion = sound of the plane impact 90+ floors above passing through the buildings structure

The smoke = a piece of burning debris falling 90+ floors from the impact zone Could be anything ranging from burning debris to the fuel deflagration. You assigned the assumption of being a single piece of debris for discussion

[c] The incedible force of wind = overpressure descending 90+ floors from the impact zone

[d] The screaming = “well what would you do if you just saw a jet liner ram into a skyscraper?” [people in the basement without windows saw the impact?] People outside would have witnessed the impact, or feeling the impact as the forces transferred through the building would have caused the same

I get this claim of ‘immediately after’ because Salvotore says, that person whose testimony we are supposed to be interpreting, “all of a sudden”. When i type “all of a sudden” into dictionary.com it states “occurring without transition from the previous form, state, etc.”.

Definitions of all of a sudden on the Web:

• without warning; "all at once, he started shouting"
• suddenly: happening unexpectedly; "suddenly she felt a sharp pain in her side"

Source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In other words unexpectedly. He feels the impact of the plane, and because of his location and his inability to witness the actual event the consequent following event suddenly happens. He doesn't know something hit the building, how exactly should he have expected the event?
The term does not indicate anything about the time frame the entire event played out in.

Now I am not even claiming that what he experienced was a bomb, the point I wish to make is that the effects of a bomb i.e. the loud sound, smoke, winds, heat, etc typically happen all of a sudden and without transition.

The same effects however as I have said repeatedly are not unique in this case to "explosives," the planes hit with the equivalence of 2000+ pounds of them and you ignore the implications such force has on the entire structure. You're claiming that events which are in fact part of the impact effects, are actually a separate event... I suppose this explanation won't make sense to you because of my wording. I'll tell you what, I'll draw a graphic representation for you today and you can critique my claim that way, sound good? Maybe you'll understand better if I explain it to you in the method I can convey my points best if you are still confused.

I not going to go through all your post. I just want to see how you respond to this one first.

heh...

 

[thewholesoul]

You're not a big boy and you're not in the game. You're like a little pissant who is making stuff up to get attention from us big boys but can't get anyone to buy into your sheer nonsense theories.

You described an accident scene and say "see that describes a bomb exactly" and then you wonder why people laugh at you. You offer no actual evideence of your claims and then wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Kid, if you want to even play in the game, then start by providing some actual evidence and not conjecture and speculation. Or at least start with reasonable speculation that isn't complete nonsense and absurd.

Off you go now....

its a public forum Jc and i apologise for my condescending comments in an earlier post.

the bottom line is an explosion happened int he basement, we can all agree on that much. no what caused it? you say the jet fuel, i say an explosive device. so we have two completing hypothesis and the effects in the basement can be arguably explained by either.

now i have propsed a simple argument. that the first basement explosion occured before car 50 reached B1. this fact renders your hypothesis impossible because jet fuel or expanding fireball did not have the velocity to pass the free falling elevator.

R MACKEY will need to change his hypothesis but i predict he will either ignire and belittle testimony, myself, and avoid addressing the simple truth of my argument.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, two competeing hypothesis. One backed by evidence, one pure conjecture.

 

[thewholesoul]

He brought up a valid question.

i agree. but an explosive can also crumble up steel and concrte fire doors.

Appeal to authority noted.

wasnt appealing to authority his poit was that the truth movement is dying, which is not the truth gibing the increasing number of high profile people coming out.
.

Legitimate as in professional titles? Or....? I'm tempted to show you what your precious architects have on their site which has direct evidence of the contrary, despite how blindingly oblivious you've been to it already.

would you support a TV debate between NIST and AE911 TRUTH?

Majority of all governments are that spineless eh?

Yes they are humans that serve their own self interests.

Not too surprising since you directly compared the US government to Hitler, I'm still looking for my nearest local death camp. I'll let you know if I ever find it.

your living in a cloud my friend if you think fema camps dont exist. youtube has plenty of examples of 'concentration camps' or internment camps.

but go watch this documentary film maker and investigative journalist who covers the issue of 'non-existent' fema camps. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4167926428522965274

hilter and his governemt were bad, they started wars, killed many people, and occupied countries in pursuit of global domination. i missed the part when the analogy between the US govt and the Nazi government falls short?

Those people can shove it. Freedom of speech allows for stupidity, but stupidity does not make a claim correct or justify agreement. .

amen grizzly. but doesnt it trouble you that people calling for a new investigation are being threatened with internment and their lives, on mainstream media!

If only you held the same denouncement standards for the people in your own movement who make the same idiot remarks.

your making a judgment without asking first my opinion. but of course i am against censorship (like youtube is beginning) and calling for the death of fellow humans with a fair trial or justice

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Yes, two competeing hypothesis. One backed by evidence, one pure conjecture.

not conjecture my friend, just fact...which one do you disgaree with and we can enter a dialogue

fact: plane hits building which cut suspension cables and deposited fuel
fact: car 50 and fuel fall down shaft
fact: fuel cannot pass car 50 given velocity
fact: first basement explosion occurs below car 50
conclusion: whatever caused explosion was not jet fuel.

seriously, pick a fact and support it with reasons. go research the testimony as opposed to making unsupported claims. anyone can do that.

peace

 

[Hellbound]

Just one point.

As a miltiary member trained in the use of explosives, and having experienced explosives of varying sizes, up to and including multi-ton HE blasts, there is nothing in an explosion that any person I've come in contact with would describe as "wind".

There is a blast wave, but it is quick and sudden. Explosions in real life aren't like in the movies; you don't have 3 seconds to run as the fireball expands; the explosion doesn't happen slow enough for you to really see the expanding fireball. In fac,t those movies exploaisons are exactly the type of thing being surmised here...they use gasoline and other fuels for the slowe,r modre visible, flashier effects. Real explosives produce very little flame (in fact, explosives are used in firefighting) and are over in an instant.

Also, another point. The definition of an explosive, as opposed to fuel or gasoline, is that the blast wave travels at the speed of sound (a lower expansion rate is not an explosion). This means that the blast wave and the sound would hit at the same time. The description given has the sound arriving a considerable time before the "wind", again supporting the idea of a fuel conflagration rather than an explosive.

Finally, I saw 5psi mentioned. That's actually a very high pressure rate, especially over a second or so. An explosive produces a very high pressur,e but for a very, very brief time. A fuel explosion procuces lower pressures over a longer time. In any case, 5 psi is enough to collapse non-reinforced walls. Think about if for a moment. An elavator door is, perhaps, 5 feet by 8 feet. That 60 inches by 96 inches, or 5,760 square inches. At 5 psi, that's the equivalent of the door holding up 28,800 pounds, or almost 14 and a half tons. That's more than the weight of the U.S. Army's M113 Armored personnel carrier (See Wiki).

So far, nothing in the account rules out a fuel conflagration, and I see a lot of indicators to rule out explosives.

 

[Hellbound]

not conjecture my friend, just fact...which one do you disgaree with and we can enter a dialogue

fact: plane hits building which cut suspension cables and deposited fuel
fact: car 50 and fuel fall down shaft

The elevator car should have had emergency brakes. Can;'t speak to that, but do you have details of the type of car used, and the safety measures included?

fact: fuel cannot pass car 50 given velocity

This relates directly to the above fact. The car would likely have emergency brakes. So the car velocity would be less than that of the fuel.

fact: first basement explosion occurs below car 50

Actually, no explosion occurred, at least according to the accounts. This is not a fact in evidence.

conclusion: whatever caused explosion was not jet fuel.

Again, you can't say this. I can state, with a high certainty, it was not an explosive. However, if you want to believe agents planted fuel-based devices there, that's your choice. It wasn't any type of LE or HE, though. The characteristics described don't match up.

seriously, pick a fact and support it with reasons. go research the testimony as opposed to making unsupported claims. anyone can do that.

And I'd say you need to research something besides testimony. Testimony is well and good, but your failing seems to be in the physical realm. You are not familiar with the characteristics of explosives, you seem to be at a loss on the construction of elevators, and frankly, you've got no physical evidence at all for your viewpoint.

So go learn a bit of science, instead of making unsupported claims that are counter-indicated by your own "evidence". Anyone can do that.

 

[R.Mackey]

Finally, I saw 5psi mentioned. That's actually a very high pressure rate, especially over a second or so. An explosive produces a very high pressur,e but for a very, very brief time. A fuel explosion procuces lower pressures over a longer time. In any case, 5 psi is enough to collapse non-reinforced walls. Think about if for a moment. An elavator door is, perhaps, 5 feet by 8 feet. That 60 inches by 96 inches, or 5,760 square inches. At 5 psi, that's the equivalent of the door holding up 28,800 pounds, or almost 14 and a half tons. That's more than the weight of the U.S. Army's M113 Armored personnel carrier (See Wiki).

So far, nothing in the account rules out a fuel conflagration, and I see a lot of indicators to rule out explosives.

Quite correct. It bears pointing out that I was the one who introduced 5 PSI to begin with, as an upper bound, to demonstrate that a reasonable quantity of jet fuel would be more than sufficient from an energy perspective. There is no evidence to support overpressures of 5 PSI, and everything points to a considerably weaker event.

Nothing about the event requires explosives. We know jet fuel was present and did deflagrate. Occam's takes care of the rest.

 

[Hellbound]

Thanks, R. Mackey. Deflagrate was the word I was trying to think of, not conflgrate!

Just change con- to de- in my posts above

 

[WildCat]

you mean ron paul, jess ventura, ralph nadar, cindy sheehan, Cynthia McKinney,

The wack pack of idiocy!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

not conjecture my friend, just fact...which one do you disgaree with and we can enter a dialogue

fact: plane hits building which cut suspension cables and deposited fuel
fact: car 50 and fuel fall down shaft
fact: fuel cannot pass car 50 given velocity
fact: first basement explosion occurs below car 50
conclusion: whatever caused explosion was not jet fuel.

seriously, pick a fact and support it with reasons. go research the testimony as opposed to making unsupported claims. anyone can do that.

peace

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

You cannot be serious. Do you not see the problems with your statements? Seriously?

And the issue still stands that you have not presented any facts to prove bombs. I know you THINK you do, but that's simply because you don't understand. And you won't understand because it has been explained to you time and again. But how can we expect a person who thinks there was only 1 elevator in the building to understand? How can we expect someone who doesn't understand the basic principles of sound to understand?

Your argument is: "If I can cast doubt on theory A, then I can automatically assume theory B with no evidence of facts to support it"

This is basically creationism.

 

[thewholesoul]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

You cannot be serious. Do you not see the problems with your statements? Seriously?

And the issue still stands that you have not presented any facts to prove bombs. I know you THINK you do, but that's simply because you don't understand. And you won't understand because it has been explained to you time and again. But how can we expect a person who thinks there was only 1 elevator in the building to understand? How can we expect someone who doesn't understand the basic principles of sound to understand?

predictably you refuse to even attempt to counter my argument.
congratulations, you are back on ignore.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Quite correct. It bears pointing out that I was the one who introduced 5 PSI to begin with, as an upper bound, to demonstrate that a reasonable quantity of jet fuel would be more than sufficient from an energy perspective. There is no evidence to support overpressures of 5 PSI, and everything points to a considerably weaker event.

Nothing about the event requires explosives. We know jet fuel was present and did deflagrate. Occam's takes care of the rest.

whats the matter Mackey, unable to refute my common sense argument? so you just ignore it and repeat your DEBUNKED mantra.

the first basmement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1the fuel DROPLETS couldnt possibly have passed it, undetected, in under 10 seconds.

but instead of doing the rational thing and changing your DEBUNKED belief you simply bury your head further into the sand.

an episode of congnitive dissonance?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Ok Grizzly, lets try Felipe’s testimony:

“Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. (a) The building started shaking after I heard (2) the explosion below, (c) dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got (d) real hot.

Your explanation is:
[a] plane impact
plane impact
[c] i dont know?
[d] fuel deflagration

Ok I have only two questions.

[1] if the sound/vibrations from the plane impact reached Felipe almost immediately, and if the time it takes a fireball to reach Felipe from the impact zone is 15 seconds (Norsemans latest calculation); then why did Felipe say “everything happened so fast” which implies that there was no 15 second time delay between the explosion and the heat?

[2] if the plane impact sounds like an explosion, and if a fuel deflagration also sounds like an explosion; then why did Felipe only report hearing one explosion?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

The wack pack of idiocy!

jesse ventura fought in vietnam, and cindy sheehan lost her son in iraq. i think you could show a little more respect for these anti-war advocates and maybe grow up in meantime.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i agree. but an explosive can also crumble up steel and concrete fire doors.

I don't think you read the documentation I provided. Fire doors used in passive fire protection assemblies are not made with concrete. They do come in material variations, among which is steel, however is not itself is not a solid steel piece, many are infilled with a polyurethane, honeycomb, steel stiffened or mineral board core

wasnt appealing to authority his poit was that the truth movement is dying, which is not the truth gibing the increasing number of high profile people coming out.

High profile doesn't equivocate to much of anything, technically speaking your implication is to a degree such an appeal to authority. Their status in society as celebrities, politicians, or professionals grants no more credence to the movement than any average person seeking to prove the point. They have to demonstrate that they have the ability to prove what they want. Granted regardless of whether the whole conspiracy issue is proven wrong, people are fallible, they'll still believe in what they want regardless, this applies to high profile people and the average joe alike. I consider the classification of truther's as a movement subjective, because there will always be nut jobs that believe the same crap, whether it deems justification to be called a movement or not.

would you support a TV debate between NIST and AE911 TRUTH?

Certainly... that is... if AE911 truth can resolve issues that are obvious even to the least practiced of people researching a given field.

[begin derail]
You can find the following excerpts from right on their website:
main page
For the sake of avoiding a total derail I'll just put out the most absurd issues...

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

Link 1 - deformation
Link 2- column deformation marking the initiation of collapse

10:21 a.m. - Aviation units circling the towers report that the North Tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south.

All of that fun stuff...


3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
Steel begins to lose elasticity at temperatures as low as 3-400 oC
Though I don't know what evidence they would want NIST to present in any hypothetical debate

And for what they present as evidence of what you believe claims like:

10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet


The claimed explosives are too weak to cause immediate collapse early on but so powerful now that they blow 20-ton sections several blocks?

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
But only on one side of the surrounding structures facing toward the collapses where they were hit by falling debris?

[/end derail]
I left out the other stuff for brevity... you don't need to respond to these individually as in this thread I don't intend to get far into this subject. I'm posting these to point out some of the issues they're lacking terribly on on.

moving on....

Yes they are humans that serve their own self interests.

I don't doubt that much

your living in a cloud my friend if you think fema camps dont exist. youtube has plenty of examples of 'concentration camps' or internment camps.

but go watch this documentary film maker and investigative journalist who covers the issue of 'non-existent' fema camps. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4167926428522965274

I'll save this part for later, unless someone wants to interject before I am able to make an assessment.

i missed the part when the analogy between the US govt and the Nazi government falls short?

Perhaps it has something to do with Hitler putting his own citizens; more than 6 million of them in fact, into gas chambers and cremating them, all because he felt that the Jews were an inferior race. Since you enjoy the comparison so much lets go to Stalin, 20 million of his own citizens or more, this article might be worth a read for you...

Are poloticians lying scumbags? yeah plenty are, look at Nixon in watergate, the scandals of Clinton, the craptastic performance of Bush's presidency, I think their's ample reason to believe that politicians work in their best interests, but your comparison to Hitler is quite a hyperbole.

amen grizzly. but doesnt it trouble you that people calling for a new investigation are being threatened with internment and their lives, on mainstream media!

It troubles me that anyone resorts to such rhetoric regardless of whether or not such threats are idle. Their stupidity and arrogance bears no justification for their statements, but this subject is not part of our discussion in this thread.

your making a judgment without asking first my opinion. but of course i am against censorship (like youtube is beginning) and calling for the death of fellow humans with a fair trial or justice

If only more of the truther's shared your apparent mindset. Many seem content with seeing me hanged for treason just for disagreeing with them and that's from personal experience. Not everyone goes quite that far, but does it concern you that people who argue your same points do the same? They seem quite free to do as they please in the "youtubian" realm

 

[TexasJack]

If you had any reading comprehension skills at all TWS, you would understand Mackey has you on ignore, and for good reasons.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

predictably you refuse to even attempt to counter my argument.
congratulations, you are back on ignore.

peace

Predictably you pretend I haven't countered your arguments and shown them to be completely wrong. Back to ignorance you go.

Peace.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

jesse ventura fought in vietnam, and cindy sheehan lost her son in iraq. i think you could show a little more respect for these anti-war advocates and maybe grow up in meantime.

People who fought in Vietnan died in that building, why don't you show some respect. Or perhaps you could provide a study that shows how anyone who fought in Vietnam is immune to idiocy?

And speaking of growing up.....Trying to use guilt to win an argument? tsk tsk tsk..

Jesse Venture and Cindy Sheehan are idiots. They like the rest you listed have not provided a shred of evidence to back their claims. They, just like you, use conjecture and make absurd arguments that simply try to cast doubt on the most logical and probably scenarios so you can just put in anything you want without having to have any evidence to back it up.

How about showing some respect for the people that died by not making a complete mockery.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Since when is Ralph Nader a truther? Oh, and Ron Paul said he doesn't believe in 9-11 conspiracy theories.