Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[aggle-rithm]

When a normal person is confronted with this conundrum:

1. An event occurs
2. You have one, and only one, hypothesis on what caused the event
3. There are possible problems with that hypothesis

...he does one of two things:

1. He formulates a new hypothesis that fits the evidence better
2. He tries to reconcile the problems with the first hypothesis

Truthers try a third approach:

1. Continue to whine about problems with the first hypothesis while refusing any attempt to understand them in any way

Idiocy springs eternal.

 

[Clayton Moore]

2. Determine how the fireball, if that is what you truly think caused the damage in the basement areas, had enough energy to cause the local destruction witnessed at impact, and yet not destroy the shafts on the way down to the basement, and then have the energy to destroy parts of the basement areas underneath both towers.

It pancaked.

 

[leftysergeant]

It pancaked.

Doesn't answer anything. Why would you have ressurected a Swing Dangler post in the first place?

His question was answered in a post just above this one somewhere. There was massive damage to the shafts. But there was little air inside the shafts and the amount of fuel left was not significant. the backdraft in that confined space would not have been very energetic. But a larger amount of fuel, with more oxygen, in an area like the lobby of basements would, of neccessity, produce a more significant blast and flames.

 

[thewholesoul]

Hello Again!

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

William Rodriguez: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

William was right and the following explains why.

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

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

(1a) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160)

(1b) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (2.4)

(1c) http://911stories.googlepages.com/de...rsioninthetowe

(2a) “Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds” http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...6/lklw.00.html

(2b) “The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors” http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/...riffiths_x.htm

(2c) Its hard to know exactly how long it took car 50 to reach B1. From Griffiths testimony we learn that the elevator ascended for 5-7 seconds. But let us only use the most generous estimation, that being 7 seconds. Freight elevators in the twin towers were gearless traction machines and could reach speeds of roughly 10 m/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevato...ist_mechanisms car 50 then ascended 7 seconds at 10m/s thus it ascended approx 70m. Each floor is approx. 3.8m so 70m = approx. 18 floors. From Griffith’s testimony we learn that the elevator fell at least 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught. So that fits in nicely.

To my mind, car 50 ascended 18 floors. when the cables were cut it then free falled 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught and the car skidded a further 2-3 floors before terminating just below B1. So I would estimate that it took car 50 no more than 10 seconds to reach B1. I welcome anyone with precise calculations based on the information we already possess.

(3) Flight AA 11 impacted from 93rd to 98th floor. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160) 93 floors = 388m . Jet fuel falls 9.1m/s http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6446.Ph.r.html 388/9.1 = 43 seconds. Taking overpressure into consideration = 30 seconds.

(4a) Standing in front of the freight elevator on B1 Felipe David recalls:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts,lobb
A free-falling elevator car is audibly detectable. Felipe however did not hear the car falling towards him. That means that the cables were not cut yet from the impact of flight 11 and that car 50 was above him.

(4b) Walking beside freight elevator Phillip Morelli B4 recalls:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts,lobb

We know that elevator car 50 did free fall down the freight elevator shaft so it seems very likely that Morelli’s assumption was correct. Given that the first explosion was heard below David and above Morelli and also given the behaviour of the building following the explosion in both David’s and Morelli’s testimony it seems reasonable to assume that they were in fact describing the same explosion.

Assuming then that it was the same explosion we know that car 50 was above David because Morelli heard the freight car falling for some time after the explosion had occured. Now the obvious reason David did not notice or report hearing a freight car falling after the explosion is because he was lying on the floor in extreme pain thinking he was going to die.

(4c) Because the occupants of car 50 did not receive burn injuries from intense heat it seems highly likely that car 50 was some distance above David who did recieve burn injuries from an explosion he experienced below him.

[Conclusion]
According to the above argument the official fireball explanation and the unofficial JREF unignited jet fuel explanation must be rejected because they are simply NOT POSSIBLE because the jet fuel cannot physically descend the 90+ floors quick enough to cause an explosion below car 50 before it reaches B1. This is essentially the problem implicit in William Rodriguez's quotation above. The falling debris explanation can also be dismissed for the simple reason that falling debirs does not burn peoples skin. so lets see it again:

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

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

if anyone in this forum believes they can refute this argument please address the premises upon which the conclusion logically follows. That is how debate works.

Bombs in the basment may be implausible to many in this room, but i will take implausible over impossible every single time. And so should any RATIONAL human being.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

the pressure inside the shafts within seconds of the aircraft impact would have climbed to a level where some of the doors down the shaft started to blow out of the shaft or into the elevator cars. Any pressure increase would move down the shaft with the speed of sound far ahead of the jetfuel cloud itself and ahead of elevator car 50 falling down the shaft. Sometime later the remains of the oxygen starved jet fuel cloud is forced out of one or both of the elevator shaft doors down on B4, deflagrating in the corridor while increasing the pressure to a level were partition walls are toppled over. Now when I have explained this to you, maybe you now are able to understand the witness accounts from the basement levels:
Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies, Basements

Hey norseman , I can't believe you are still here my friend? I don't understand, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought solid metal objects fell faster than liquid droplets or gas clouds???

 

[beachnut]

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

An aircraft caused the damage; kind of debunks anything 9/11 truth has. What caused the burns and damage in your story of 9/11?

There were no no bombs, no thermite, no other BS that 9/11 truth lies about, and never had evidence.

Thus anything 9/11 truth dreams up about what happened, is debunked because there is no evidence. Thus this remains debunked, whatever this is.

 

[pgimeno]

[Conclusion]
According to the above argument the official fireball explanation and the unofficial JREF unignited jet fuel explanation must be rejected because they are simply NOT POSSIBLE because the jet fuel cannot physically descend the 90+ floors quick enough to cause an explosion below car 50 before it reaches B1. This is essentially the problem implicit in William Rodriguez's quotation above. The falling debris explanation can also be dismissed for the simple reason that falling debirs does not burn peoples skin. so lets see it again:

Neither do bombs or explosives. What's your explanation for that?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Breaking News:

I just thought I would repost an old argument

 

[Axxman300]

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

Willie Rodriguez doesn't believe that stuff now and has recanted much of this now that he understands what happened. You'll have to hunt down his exchanges over on "Screw Loose Change", but he no loner thinks there were bombs.

Try to keep current.

 

[BasqueArch]

Loon of the gaps

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

The thesis that a bomb in the basement caused the collapse of the towers 90 infernal floors above an hour later requires further explication.
Please flesh out this Loon of the gaps.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Willie Rodriguez doesn't believe that stuff now and has recanted much of this now that he understands what happened. You'll have to hunt down his exchanges over on "Screw Loose Change", but he no loner thinks there were bombs.

Try to keep current.

They got to him.

 

[DGM]

Bombs in the basement may be implausible to many in this room, but i will take implausible over impossible every single time. And so should any RATIONAL human being.

The problem here is your "impossible" is based on timing derived from accounts made after the fact. As you know, memory is not like a video capture. Time is one of the elements that seems to suffer greatly in high stress situations. Witnesses routinely describe in seconds events that actually take much longer. I'm sure you know this but I can reference studies to support this fact.

So, in this case I would go with known facts.

Fuel laden aircraft hit the towers.
The fuel was seen to ignite.
There was a path for fuel to travel to the lower levels.
There was no reports of blast effect trauma on any of the burn victims.

To me the facts point to a fuel/air deflagration rather than a high order explosion.

peace

To you as well.

 

[Brainster]

Willie Rodriguez doesn't believe that stuff now and has recanted much of this now that he understands what happened. You'll have to hunt down his exchanges over on "Screw Loose Change", but he no loner thinks there were bombs.

Try to keep current.

Indeed, in an early TV interview, Willie described it quite simply as "the fireball."

 

[Brainster]

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

Why are you so focused on the jet fuel that traveled downward (as all things tend to when in a gravity field)?

Check out the fireball outside WTC-2 when Flight 175 hit it. It extends well above the point of impact, which means what? That it traveled upward in defiance of the law of gravity!

 

[LSSBB]

Why are you so focused on the jet fuel that traveled downward (as all things tend to when in a gravity field)?

Check out the fireball outside WTC-2 when Flight 175 hit it. It extends well above the point of impact, which means what? That it traveled upward in defiance of the law of gravity!

thewholesoul doesn't "believe" in gravity (Flat Earth thread).

 

[FFTR]

How do you know, that the seismographs did register the plane impact and not the explosions in the underground? Show me your evidences for your conclusions.
My conclusion:
We know now, that the shifting of the foundation cannot be caused by the plane impact (the shaking of the towers was just as big as during medium wind loads). Therefore the shifting was most probably caused by an explosion, exactly in time with the plane impact, in the foundation. I have a plenty of confirmed explosions from B 1 to B5. Yes - even in B 5 in the underground station (many meters away away the shafts of the elevators), we have rubble, cave-in and destroyed walls.

So it is reasonable, to ...
1. ... believe the witness account of a shifting foundation,
2. ... to see the shifting confirmed by the seismographs and
3. ... to realize the existence of explosions, which cannot be explained by the "magic fireball theory".

If you have not you should look at this site:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/

1. witness accounts need to be backed up by other evidence.
Witness accounts can differ without anyone lying. They are telling what they "believe" occurred.
ex: witness 1 says victim was shot in the back by a police officer.
witness 2 says victim was shot in the front by a police officer
medical examiner determines victim was hit by 1 gun shot from the front.

2. It is your burden to prove it was a CD if that is what you believe. Each explanation should stand on its own merits.

The problem I have with the CD explanation is there is no one concise explanation. We have C4, thermite, nanothermite, nukes, mini neutron bombs, combination of explosives and last but not least the energy beam weapon. Gage disagrees with Prager, Prager disagrees with Gage. Wood is laughed at. So who is correct?

I have yet to see any convincing proof or explanation of the CD of WTC1,2,7.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The problem here is your "impossible" is based on timing derived from accounts made after the fact. As you know, memory is not like a video capture. Time is one of the elements that seems to suffer greatly in high stress situations. Witnesses routinely describe in seconds events that actually take much longer. I'm sure you know this but I can reference studies to support this fact.

So, in this case I would go with known facts.

Fuel laden aircraft hit the towers.
The fuel was seen to ignite.
There was a path for fuel to travel to the lower levels.
There was no reports of blast effect trauma on any of the burn victims.

To me the facts point to a fuel/air deflagration rather than a high order explosion.



To you as well.

The smoking gun to any close proximity explosive detonations is injury consistent with blast trauma and hearing impairment from the noise levels. I recall when I used to be active in this section a number of times pointing out how even in safely controlled demolitions people have sustained serious injuries on rare occaisions from ejected debris several hundred yards distant from the actual demolition sites. Though burns can be life threatening its the least of concerns with an explosive device... anyone that has even paid attention to the news about suicide bombings overseas knows that they can seriously mame the human body. To me its not a question of whether or not explosives were ever plausible, the added consideration for the known effects of close proximity explosions on the human body and the behavior of fuel deflageration doesnt support the interpretation of eye witness testimony being a smoking gun for bombs in the basement levels. So indeed... going with the collective of known facts... theres no support for explosives. Thewholesouls line of thinking is too narrow

I know it to be a pattern with these conspiracy theories to latch onto isolated witness statements without the expanded thoughts about other factors that complete the collective evidence

 

[BStrong]

Hello everyone. It's been awhile. I just thought I would repost an old argument, that still remains to be debunked. It proves that the official narrative is wrong with relation to the cause of the basement explosion...I wonder what else they are wrong about?

Then you've been wrong twice for the same price.

Might want to do a little research into how flammable fuel expands when ignited. it's why flammable fuels can produce power while ignited in the combustion chamber of an engine. A little bit of fuel that's atomized (which is exactly what happened when the aircraft's fuel tanks were shredded) creates a hell of a lot of pressure.

Good primer on comparison of relative energy - it's not perfectly correct. There no way to throw a 120 grain 7.62 mm slug out of a 39 mm long case at 3,000 fps.

The general info wrt to the comparative energies of explosives is in the ballpark. Jet fuel (kerosene) dispersed into the air is going to burn hot and fast and the release energy would also cause a certain amount (far less than HE in a longer time-frame) of over pressure.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/energies.htm

Once the fuel-air mixture was in the elevator shafts all it took was one good ignition source and that material was expanding into what ever was the path of least resistance and causing a certain amount of blast damage. Far less than what HE would cause but blast damage none-the-less.

 

[BStrong]

The smoking gun to any close proximity explosive detonations is injury consistent with blast trauma and hearing impairment from the noise levels. I recall when I used to be active in this section a number of times pointing out how even in safely controlled demolitions people have sustained serious injuries on rare occaisions from ejected debris several hundred yards distant from the actual demolition sites. Though burns can be life threatening its the least of concerns with an explosive device... anyone that has even paid attention to the news about suicide bombings overseas knows that they can seriously mame the human body. To me its not a question of whether or not explosives were ever plausible, the added consideration for the known effects of close proximity explosions on the human body and the behavior of fuel deflageration doesnt support the interpretation of eye witness testimony being a smoking gun for bombs in the basement levels. So indeed... going with the collective of known facts... theres no support for explosives. Thewholesouls line of thinking is too narrow

I know it to be a pattern with these conspiracy theories to latch onto isolated witness statements without the expanded thoughts about other factors that complete the collective evidence

Explosives in general is Big Voodoo to most CTists, and they generally are very limited in any type of knowledge about the subject matter.

All you need to do is read their various versions of the effects of Thermite, Thermate, Nano-Thermite, Super Nano Thermite, Banana Fana Fo Fana Thermite, ad infinitum.

I once attempted IRL to explain the difference between typical low order explosives, primary high explosives and secondary high explosives to a CTist w/ the 9/11 CD fixation.

I would have had better results from teaching my cat mathematics.

They could not grasp the fact that any secondary high explosives in the WTC would have burned away by the fire - when I tried to explain that burning is the approved method of disposal for secondary high explosives that are out of expiration (another great revelation to untrained persons, don't get me started) they rejected the notion out of hand.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Explosives in general is Big Voodoo to most CTists, and they generally are very limited in any type of knowledge about the subject matter.

All you need to do is read their various versions of the effects of Thermite, Thermate, Nano-Thermite, Super Nano Thermite, Banana Fana Fo Fana Thermite, ad infinitum.

I once attempted IRL to explain the difference between typical low order explosives, primary high explosives and secondary high explosives to a CTist w/ the 9/11 CD fixation.

I would have had better results from teaching my cat mathematics.

They could not grasp the fact that any secondary high explosives in the WTC would have burned away by the fire - when I tried to explain that burning is the approved method of disposal for secondary high explosives that are out of expiration (another great revelation to untrained persons, don't get me started) they rejected the notion out of hand.

I'm aware. Dealing with direct impacts of explosives on the human body is a narrow field specific to certain aspects of his and other's specific claims. There's also - as you point out - the effect of the fires and impacts on any devices that we can fantasize as having been planted. We can also point out how there was no collapse initiation from the bottom of the building, how they've photoshopped pictures of the recovery work, or photomined pictures out of context. I also Remember Tony's fixation on no "present dynamic loading" during the collapse, or his fixation with literal representation of limiting case models. Or thewholesoul's effort to make his arguments sound like they've been articulated with reasoning and knowledge.

The argument has and continues to be them separating the impacts from the fires, and the secondary effect of the tower collapses on the surrounding infrastructure if we're dealing with WTC 7's case. They focus on isolated detail refuse to acknowledge the connective web of information that explains everything they question...

So at this point... I just let the die hards believe what they want, and I'll just answer questions to those I think have a realistic chance of understanding the issues