Merged Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby

[Alferd_Packer]

thewholesoul gives and calculates it as a constant velocity--but he says it's the rate at which jet fuel "falls".

When something is falling, it is being moved by gravity. The value for gravity is acceleration, not velocity.

(He also has the figure wrong; the correct approximation to the nearest tenth is 9.8)

Actually, the acceleration will be zero once the falling drop approaches its terminal velocity.

However, this assumes that the fuel droplets are 0.2 inches in diameter as they enter the shaft, this is a big assumption. It also assumes that jet fuel has the same surface tension as water.

In any event, it is a moot point. It was the expanding flame front that traversed down the shaft, not fuel dain drops.

 

[thewholesoul]

So, what kind of bomb can "burn a man's arms and face to a crisp" and not blow him to smithereens? No truther has been able to answer this question, maybe you can tws?

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EssXKHQISm8

peace

 

[Alt+F4]

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EssXKHQISm8

peace

Are you saying that there were IED's in the WTC?

 

[thewholesoul]

Thee reasons why I don't agree.

1) the impact severed elevator cables causing several of them to fall. This would have caused considerable downdraft within the elevator shaft.

2) When the fuel ignited, the rapidly expanding cloud of hot combustion gases would have shot down the elevator shafts like a giant spud gun. There is no evidence that the fuel fell all the way down before it ignited. In fact the idea is rather ludicrous.

3) The fuel started out as large volumes of liquid, not raindrops.

1) car 50 was approx 75 floors below impact zone. i seriously doubt it would have made considerable downdraft - at least enough to affect the speed of a descending fireball.

2) How could a fireball tarvelling down the shaft burn the skin off people outside the shaft but not burn the skin off people inside the shaft? i agree with the latter end of your statement.

3) do you have any evidence for this claim? i would have presumed that the fuel load would have been dispersed into tiny droplets upon impact.

Actually, the acceleration will be zero once the falling drop approaches its terminal velocity.

However, this assumes that the fuel droplets are 0.2 inches in diameter as they enter the shaft, this is a big assumption. It also assumes that jet fuel has the same surface tension as water.

In any event, it is a moot point. It was the expanding flame front that traversed down the shaft, not fuel dain drops.

so when i assume that fuel droplets are 0.2 inches its a big assumption but when you assume its a volume of liquid - its ok. i think the former assumption is more accurate given the plane impact.

if it was an explanding flame then how did it not destroy the car 50, burn the occupants within the shaft, but could burn people outside the shaft?

thewholesoul, you do know that there were more elevator shafts in the building than just the shaft for Car 50, right?

no way! guess i'm stundied?

Felipe David says he was standing in front of the Car 50 elevator shaft when a fireball engulfed him, but Felipe David was still SURROUNDED by elevator shafts and elevator doors.

so the fireball was emitted from another shaft?

The NIST report states that Car 6 was one of the ones that plummetted all the way to the sub-basement pit. This could explain the "explosion" that Felipe David felt below him.

no it could not.

i assume that the cable to car 50 and 6 were cut at the same time that means they fell at the same time. a falling elevator is audibly detectable. but Felipe heard an explosion below him, not a falling elevator coming from above. unless your saying that the elevator fell silently passed? is that what your saying?

Therefore, your entire analysis of the events involving the Car 50 shaft are irrelevant, because the fireball erupted from the Car 6 shaft (probably).

probably not my learned friend. it is a good thing you plugged in that qualifier at the end to save face when i debunk your "original" thought.

what your saying is elevator car 6 silently fell down the shaft passed felipe then exploded when it hit the shaft pit. then a fireball travelled down the shaft of car 6 - and not down the shaft of car 50 - and felipe was burnt in the back.

but wouldnt a fireball travelled down ALL available avenues from the imapct zone? and wouldnt these fireballs travel at the same speed? so in actual fact felipe should have been toasted from both sides. in any event, how do you explain how the fireball burnt people outside the shaft but not people inside the shaft?

and one last thing. given that we can rule out the elevators creating the explosion on impact in the shaft pit. we are still left with explaining what caused the explosion he heard below a fireball could not possible explain this; if it could it would have to pass felipe first then explode then burn felipe. but this is absurd given that the fireball descended from above to below.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here we go with the conspiracy theory that napalm type of bombs were planted in the basement with the sole purpose of creating shock and awe yet providing no use what so ever in the events of the day. My God, ho to these nutjobs take themselves seriously??

Is this a joke?

 

[stateofgrace]

Emmm.

Am I correct in the assumption that these explosions took place at about the same time as the planes hit?

If so, then how did they contribute to the top down collapse of each tower?

How did "bombs" in the basement at the exact time the plane/s hit,cause the top down "demolision"?

Anybody?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"Begin the unecissarily slow dipping mechanism!"

 

[bio]

Thesis:

The cars of elevators 6,7 were parked in the basement (where exactly is in dispute here). The "fireballs" traveled down the shafts 6,7, and exploded in the basement. They exploded there, where the cars were parked. Okay.
But:
How can these fireballs of shaft 6, 7 also explode in the lobby? We know that the doors of elevators 6,7 were blown out.

Were there several traveling fireballs minutes apart from each other or one fireball exploding two times?

Dave Bobbitt, Port Authority Operations
"It was quite hectic, and we did what we could to stay in contact with the elevator passengers while helping to direct other people out of the building and direct firemen to the stairs and the elevators," Bobbitt remarked. "When entering the North Tower, we saw the marble on the walls was severely cracked, and Riccardelli told everyone to stay back from the walls. Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out."
(From "Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11")

 

[Jonnyclueless]

As previously stated, there were more than 2 elevator shafts in the bulding. And as previously stated, each elevator shaft has multiple doors on multiple levels, not just one on each end of the shaft.

 

[thewholesoul]

Yeah, he is claiming that it took 30 seconds for the jet fuel to fall down the elevator shaft.

That is a new level of stupidity not seen before.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Albert Einstein

peace

 

[Dave Rogers]

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Albert Einstein

Are you sure it wasn't Kevin Barrett?

Dave

 

[thewholesoul]

Are you sure it wasn't Kevin Barrett?

Dave

could kevin barrett not have used a quotation from eistein?

but Dave what is the point in posting your insignificant post? i simply dont understand people like youreself who would rather nitpick than take on the main argument being made.

(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

do you object to any of the above dave? because if you dont then the official fireball hypothesis is impossible. but why would a little thing like that upset your quest for nitpicking?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

hey grissly

which one of the statements below is wrong. you entered this thread so tackle the main argument i am presenting. if you can, of course, because no one else is able to.

(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

peace.

p.s. fabircated photos do not affect the above argument

 

[Dave Rogers]

could kevin barrett not have used a quotation from eistein?

It was what we call "a joke", as Kevin Barrett is famous round here for claiming that another investigation is needed to establish whether or not 9-11 was an inside job, yet at the same time calls for the execution of those who suggest it may not have been.

but Dave what is the point in posting your insignificant post? i simply dont understand people like youreself who would rather nitpick than take on the main argument being made.

Well, one function of nitpicking is to highlight the poor research skills of people who use quotes like this when a moment's Googling would reveal that Einstein never made any such statement, and that the quote goes back to the 18th century and has been gradually adjusted in meaning over the years. One could also ask why you posted the quote in the first place; it has the look of a rather desperate appeal to authority.

do you object to any of the above dave? because if you dont then the official fireball hypothesis is impossible. but why would a little thing like that upset your quest for nitpicking?

I object to your claim that jet fuel took 30 seconds to fall 93 floors. Since it is one of the very few reasonable claims of the truth movement, repeated ad nauseam, that an object could fall from the top of the Twin Towers to the ground in under 10 seconds, then your insistence that the jet fuel took over three times as long to fall a shorter distance seems a little surprising. At the moment your only justification for the bizarre assertion that jet fuel, unlike every other material, falls at a constant velocity under the effects of gravity, is a dead link. Could you, perhaps, enlighten us with a more complete explanation of this rather unusual backwater of the laws of physics?

Dave

 

[Dabljuh]

Could someone bring me up to speed here? Is there any part the truthers and the debunkers both can agree on yet? What are points of discussion that are not yet resolved?

 

[thewholesoul]

Could someone bring me up to speed here? Is there any part the truthers and the debunkers both can agree on yet? What are points of discussion that are not yet resolved?

this thread is about the explosion in the basement witnessed by many. the official story is that a fireball travelled down the elevator shaft and exploded in a deflagration. below is my argument which proves that tis explanation is impossible and should be rejected.

(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

the point is if you agree with the above 4 premises then you must accept the conclusion.

if you read the entre thread you will find that no debunker can debunk it.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Well, one function of nitpicking is to highlight the poor research skills of people who use quotes like this when a moment's Googling would reveal that Einstein never made any such statement, and that the quote goes back to the 18th century and has been gradually adjusted in meaning over the years. One could also ask why you posted the quote in the first place; it has the look of a rather desperate appeal to authority.

are you saying einstein never said the quote i attributed to him?

the reason i posted it Dave was because someone insulted me without investigating my claim. that is why Dave the quote was appropriate.

a desperate appeal to authority? where is Alfred now dave? he came here to insult me and debunk my argument and now he is gone. he did the old dissappearing act once he discovered he that was unable to debunk my argumnet. it is exactly what you are going to do Dave so stay tuned because he raised the very same objection as you!

I object to your claim that jet fuel took 30 seconds to fall 93 floors. Since it is one of the very few reasonable claims of the truth movement, repeated ad nauseam, that an object could fall from the top of the Twin Towers to the ground in under 10 seconds, then your insistence that the jet fuel took over three times as long to fall a shorter distance seems a little surprising. At the moment your only justification for the bizarre assertion that jet fuel, unlike every other material, falls at a constant velocity under the effects of gravity, is a dead link. Could you, perhaps, enlighten us with a more complete explanation of this rather unusual backwater of the laws of physics?

this is it Dave...the big rebuttal? this point was covered above by Norseman a few posts up and if you researched a little further - in google - you would learn that a raindrop would break apart if it were to continue accelerating beyond 9.1m/s that is why raindrops hit the earth at 9.1m/s and not above this speed. and by the way 30 seconds is generous from that distance it would be 40 seconds but i tried to account for the overpressure as did Norseman in post #1 in this thread.

so Dave given that you are UNABLE to refute ANY of the statements 1-4 are you going to do the rational thing and accept the conclusion that follows from these statements?

and dont worry i am not expecting a reply just another disappearing act

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Based on the assumption that the jet fuel fell in droplets and was not ignighted and there was no force behind them such as something like an explosion caused by something like say, um, a commercial jet impacting a building? hmm.

Sounds like someone has been sniffing too much glue..

 

[Dave Rogers]

are you saying einstein never said the quote i attributed to him?

It didn't originate with him. He may have quoted it himself; as I don't have a record to hand of everything Einstein ever said in his entire life, I can't be sure. What's your evidence for the claim that he did say it?

this is it Dave...the big rebuttal? this point was covered above by Norseman a few posts up and if you researched a little further - in google - you would learn that a raindrop would break apart if it were to continue accelerating beyond 9.1m/s that is why raindrops hit the earth at 9.1m/s and not above this speed. and by the way 30 seconds is generous from that distance it would be 40 seconds but i tried to account for the overpressure as did Norseman in post #1 in this thread.

So your argument is that, because the maximum particle size of a raindrop is about 2.5mm, the maximum particle size of a large volume of jet fuel falling down a lift shaft is also 2.5mm? Perhaps you should take a little time and trouble justifying that assumption, because at the moment you have no rational basis for it.

Your statement that "a raindrop would break apart if it were to continue accelerating beyond 9.1m/s" is misleadingly phrased, by the way, although strictly true. A raindrop of 2.5mm or less will reach terminal velocity below 9.1m/s. Larger raindrops, which would fall faster, are believed to break up, but not because of their speed.

"The 4 mm maximum diameter of raindrops probably results because raindrops larger than this size tend to break up when colliding with other large raindrops." Davis, Neil T. "Raindrop Size Article #236." Alaska Science Forum. 28 June 1978.

Note the word "probably"; the processes limiting the size of raindrops aren't fully understood. But it's not the speed of the raindrop that causes it to break up; rather, the speed and the tendency to break up are functions of the same variable, the diameter of the raindrop.

We know that raindrops condense out of vapour rather than starting as a large body of liquid that then breaks up into droplets. The jet fuel in the Twin Towers started as liquid, that was then dispersed into drops of unknown size (NIST wasn't able to provide good estimates of size distributions, but I recall a suggestion on the forum that drops of up to 1 litre in size might be expected). The jet fuel is able to pool, then pour down the shafts as a continuous stream. This won't have anything like the behaviour of a collection of droplets, because its cross-sectional area perpendicular to the direction of fall - and hence, its air resistance - is many times smaller in relation to its mass. Therefore, we would expect a continuous stream of fuel pouring down a shaft to have a very much higher terminal velocity than a collection of droplets of 2.5mm or smaller diameter.

Therefore, your entire thesis rests on the requirement that a stream of liquid falling a few hundred metres down an enclosed shaft behaves exactly the same as a diffuse collection of droplets condensing out of a large volume of vapour and falling thousands of metres through open air. This is an entirely unwarranted assumption, and one that appears to disagree with the dynamics of the situation you're trying to describe. Either prove that your raindrop model gives a good description of the terminal velocity of a large body of fuel falling a few hundred metres, or accept that you can't prove your point.

Dave

 

[thewholesoul]

It didn't originate with him.

did i say it did?

He may have quoted it himself;

no he did

as I don't have a record to hand of everything Einstein ever said in his entire life, I can't be sure. What's your evidence for the claim that he did say it?

go find it yourself.

So your argument is that, because the maximum particle size of a raindrop is about 2.5mm, the maximum particle size of a large volume of jet fuel falling down a lift shaft is also 2.5mm?

wrong. when did i say the maximum size was 2.5mm? the maximum size for a rain drop is 5mm although in Brazil under certain conditions the biggest ever raindrop was recorded at 10mm and you can find that out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain

here is my argument: the fireball explanation or the unignited jet fuel exploding explantion are both IMPOSSIBLE and thus cannot account for the first explosion experienced in the basement of the north tower. Premise#3 states: Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1. the 30 secs is an approximation but the point is that it could not have possibly reached let alone pass the falling elevator car 50 before it came to a hault at B1.

Perhaps you should take a little time and trouble justifying that assumption, because at the moment you have no rational basis for it.

I never made that assumption that is why i have no rational basis for it.

Your statement that "a raindrop would break apart if it were to continue accelerating beyond 9.1m/s" is misleadingly phrased, by the way, although strictly true. A raindrop of 2.5mm or less will reach terminal velocity below 9.1m/s. Larger raindrops, which would fall faster, are believed to break up, but not because of their speed.

I agree. But the key point is not why the raindrop falls apart but that it will fall apart beyond its terminal velocity of 9.1m/s – this is the rational basis behind premise #3 Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1. So i see you are nolonger directly attacking my premise and concede that it is true.

"The 4 mm maximum diameter of raindrops probably results because raindrops larger than this size tend to break up when colliding with other large raindrops." Davis, Neil T. "Raindrop Size Article #236." Alaska Science Forum. 28 June 1978.

good research. but on wiki it says the largest raindrop recorded was 10mm? I agree collosions are obviously one mechanism for the deformation of droplets but on the following link http://www.shorstmeyer.com/wxfaqs/float/dropdeform.html you will read another. The air forces the break up of drops 5mm in diameter.

Note the word "probably"; the processes limiting the size of raindrops aren't fully understood. But it's not the speed of the raindrop that causes it to break up; rather, the speed and the tendency to break up are functions of the same variable, the diameter of the raindrop.

point taken now apply it to my premise.

We know that raindrops condense out of vapour rather than starting as a large body of liquid that then breaks up into droplets. The jet fuel in the Twin Towers started as liquid, that was then dispersed into drops of unknown size (NIST wasn't able to provide good estimates of size distributions, but I recall a suggestion on the forum that drops of up to 1 litre in size might be expected).

1 litre sized droplets!!!

First of all, there is absolutely no evidence in support of this claim. Secondly, it is patently absurd. Your telling me that an aluminium plane disintrgrated into tiny pieces but the liquid jet fuel did not? Why dont you fill and fuel tank with fuel and slam it into a steel framed building at 600mph and see if the fuel load will form 1 litre sized droplets Dave. Third, it is absurd because a litre of any liquid propelled at this speed will naturally deform into droplets – but more likely spray! Hence the deflagration. Even if you dropped a litre water baloon it will disperse into droplets 5mm and less by gravity alone. Now imagine the forces involved in a plane crash.

The jet fuel is able to pool, then pour down the shafts as a continuous stream.

...first we have 1 litre droplets, now we have a continuous stream! Again, absolutely no evidence. Again, absolutely absurd propositon. You seriously expect me to believe that the jet fuel disperses into tiny droplets then managed to pool and stream down the elevator shaft all in fractions of a second with the energies involved.

This won't have anything like the behaviour of a collection of droplets, because its cross-sectional area perpendicular to the direction of fall - and hence, its air resistance - is many times smaller in relation to its mass.

First, your streaming jetfuel hypothesis is not the official NIST hypothesis see post 236 in this thread.

Second, your sepcialist jargon is not impressing anyone, especially when its based on an absurd fantazy. But maybe you can explain how LIQUID jet fuel will not deform into millions of tiny droplets upon impact along with the rest of the plane? The fact that we all witnessed a huge deflagration is evidence that the jet fuel was aerosolized. Consider the energy involved in a collosion between a steel framed tower and a jet travelling at 600mph, there is no way the LIQUID jet fuel would not be dispersed into a million tiny droplets.

Therefore, we would expect a continuous stream of fuel pouring down a shaft to have a very much higher terminal velocity than a collection of droplets of 2.5mm or smaller diameter.

A continuous stream of fuel needs a source. The source exploded my friend, did you not see the deflagration on impact?

Therefore, your entire thesis rests on the requirement that a stream of liquid falling a few hundred metres down an enclosed shaft behaves exactly the same as a diffuse collection of droplets condensing out of a large volume of vapour and falling thousands of metres through open air.

Thesis? I hardly think a four line argument amounts to a thesis my friend. And no it doesnt rest on what you have stated above. I never claimed a stream of liquid fell down the shafts, i never claimed that such a stream would behave exactly like a collection of droplets. Thats all in your head. All i am claiming is that the terminal velocity of a raindrop is 9m/s. At this velocity I estimate that it would take around 40 secs but 30seconds (taking overpressure into account) to reach B1. therefore the droplets of jet fuel could not have reached car 50 before it reached the B1 level.

This is an entirely unwarranted assumption, and one that appears to disagree with the dynamics of the situation you're trying to describe.

You just made a big fat strawman argument.

Either prove that your raindrop model gives a good description of the terminal velocity of a large body of fuel falling a few hundred metres, or accept that you can't prove your point.

It is a fact that a rain drop of 5mm has a terminal velocity of 9m/s. What is there to prove? If you googled a little more often you would find the same information as myself. Here is a nove little article on the terminal velocity of a raindrop http://www.wonderquest.com/falling-raindrops.htm. now maybe a droplet from jet fuel has more cohesion than a droplet of water but being liguid the degree of cohesion between the molecules cant be that significant i would imagine.

You have to prove how the fuel load of flight 11 created litre sized droplets, pooled, and then streamed, continuously, down the freight elevator shaft. anybody with a droplet of common sense would recognise the absurdity of such a positon.

Here is a summary of our exchange
- you nitpick over a quote
- i say tackle the main argument
- you claimed premise#3 was false
- you now concede to rational basis behind premise #3 (i.e. that the terminal velocity of a raindrop is 9m/s)
- but argue that the jet fuel streamed down the shaft not in droplet form.
- But this argument is (1) absurd (2) not the official story (3) not backed by evidence

p.s. given that you are unable to refute any of my premises are you going to do the rational thing and accept the conclusion that arises from these premises? or are you going to reject the conclusion for no good reason and disappear into the ether like the rest of the debunkers who were unable to debunk this 4 line argument?

peace