Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[R.Mackey]

As you know, I read that post, and if your stats for MJ/kg of jet fuel as compared to TNT are correct, then I can believe the energy potential is present in jet fuel, however, the point I continue to drive home is that for that energy to be released from the jet fuel in such a way as to cause a blast (meaning, something with a real shockwave capable of knocking down walls, blowing out windows, and even toppling or destroying a press, on multiple floors of a concrete and steel building), it has to be in a very specific state, namely the "fuel/air" mix we keep referring to. To get from liquid in the wings to "fuel/air vapor" in the basement is a huge stretch of the imagination, IMO. Burning fireballs shooting down the elevators: likely. Fuel/air mist traveling that far and then exploding in the basement: not likely at all.

Completely wrong. I've discussed the fallacy of a "very specific" fuel/air mixture above. There is no requirement for a "shockwave," and there is strong evidence against any "shockwave." What we need is an overpressure event, but we do not require nor expect a supersonic one.

Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects.

 

[Lurker]

To get from liquid in the wings to "fuel/air vapor" in the basement is a huge stretch of the imagination, IMO. Burning fireballs shooting down the elevators: likely. Fuel/air mist traveling that far and then exploding in the basement: not likely at all.

This is clearly an argument based on personal incredulity. I myself wonder about these things but I am no expert or even pretend to be one with regards to explosives and combustion. Neither are you as it appears you have less relevent eduction on this matter than I have had (I had one class in engine cycles). But it does appear that RMackey has some level of expertise, at least more than you or I, in this area. Why do you flatly dismiss his more learned opinion and instead cling to an opinion with far less learning behind it? It is illogical.

By the way, your personal incredulity is based on so many things you (nor I) have any idea about. Plane crashes are quite chaotic. We don't even know the layout or details on how the fuel moved in the building although I did see a neat animation from an analysis showing it.

 

[beachnut]

Completely wrong. I've discussed the fallacy of a "very specific" fuel/air mixture above. There is no requirement for a "shockwave," and there is strong evidence against any "shockwave." What we need is an overpressure event, but we do not require nor expect a supersonic one.

Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects.

I have a feeling he will not grasp the idea of pressure, maybe he has never slammed a car door and blown a window all over the driveway into tiny little pieces of glass. The only thing complex about 9/11 is explaining each trivial results of 19 terrorist in 4 large jets to total idiots who do not understand the ideas in the first place; then the hardest of all is talking to biased political engineers who have signed up blindly to nut case petitions and they try to make up science stuff to support their membership in woo. As those who want to see CT all over grasp onto the results of the terrorist, they have failed to gain the education to understand math and physics, and the marvels of our physical existence

Sorry, I was thinking of all the times I have seen the physical world meet dummies like me who thought something could not happen. But now at least I am witnessing idiots who are trying to back in science to support their CT ideas; like 9/11 truth they will fail or learn how to think rationally and search for the reason something happen instead of making up lies and trying to fit false conclusions to warped analysis.

You continue to help these few "smart" truthers to see if they choose to understand. Good work, thanks for taking a little time to explain things to those who do not care for truth or evidence.

 

[brasil]

Down the elevator shafts. I've already explained this too. Mist, drops, streams, pools, whatever -- the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above, take your pick. Fuel that enters the shaft as liquid will aereate as it falls. Fuel that enters as entrained mist is already aereated. Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air, and this could happen anywhere along the way depending on its density.

I'm still baffled about why this scenario even seems implausible. Crash a fuel-laden jetliner into a building, and you're going to get fireballs. Not just one, either. This seems absolutely trivial to grasp.

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).

"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?

For the time being, let's only talk about WTC2. Philip Morelli is on the video I posted explaining he experienced the almost identical "blast" phenomena there as he had in WTC1. What makes WTC2 interesting is that the plane hit the corner and a large amount of jet fuel exploded on the outside. In that post I'm still reading - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099 - only WTC1 is being talked about. NIST hypothesizes (they don't know, and no one ever will know for sure) that 40% drained into the "lower structure" at WTC1. "Lower Structure" doesn't mean "all to the basement." I think it's safe to assume that a lot less than 40% drained to lower floors in the case of WTC2, because a lot more of it burned up outside the building.

 

[R.Mackey]

A Potentially Useful Analogy

Have you ever heard a car backfire?

This doesn't happen so often in these days of AFMs, precision injection, and OBD-III, but it used to happen all the time in older vehicles.

What happens is that the vehicle is running fuel-rich. Combustion in the cylinders does not burn off all the fuel, and so some fuel vapor is expelled in the exhaust stroke.

This excess fuel is not "on fire," despite the fact that it was contained in a nearly ideal ignition event. So it does not exit the cylinder "on fire." It's hot, but not burning.

Over time, this fuel collects in the exhaust system, usually in the muffler near the baffles. There is also a small amount of oxygen entrainment, particularly if your exhaust system is leaky, as many are. When the fuel-oxygen mixture reaches just the right point, such that the flash point is equal to the temperature of the exhaust system, it deflagrates -- creating a loud BANG. A bad backfire can actually punch holes in your (steel) muffler.

This is, in microcosm, what we anticipate in the WTC fireballs. The initial impact is fuel-rich. Fuel travels through the structure, not as a single blob of liquid but somewhat dispersed. New oxygen is entrained. There are plenty of sources of ignition. Where and when it ignites or explodes is difficult to predict. Those explosions can produce considerable force.

Like I said, simple.

 

[Lurker]

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).

True. The gas will follow paths of least resistance. The wider the orifice the more of the gas will flow into it. A hole into the elevator shafts is a pretty big hole. I am sure that much went through the building or out other areas.

"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

I see nothing wrong with his statement. Where is the stretch specifically? You have already said it acts more like a gas. Pressure acting on a gas will accelerate it into an opening, right?

"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?

Hmm, a year or so ago I had some oil on the stove that I was heating up to deep fry chimichangas. I had put the lid on and left it there a bit too long. When I took the lid off, the oil immediately went on fire as the oxygen rushed in. No spark required. This is the flash point.

 

[R.Mackey]

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

Then you should just call it quits. If you accept fireballs on the 45^th floor, you should accept one in the basement. Same phenomenon.

You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).

No matter how the fuel starts, as it travels, it gets aereated. You yourself said you accepted my estimate of fuel volume reaching the basement. It's not likely to get there as a well-contained, unoxygenated globule of liquid.

"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

No it's not. You're simply contradicting me, now.

"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?

It's only one of many options. I also speculate that the elevator impacts down below could very, very easily create electrical shorts -- this might explain why no fireballs (if I remember correctly) were seen between the 45^th floor and the basement. Local damage would create a higher probability of ignition in areas isolated from the falling fuel that was burning, on the outside of the Towers.

For the time being, let's only talk about WTC2. Philip Morelli is on the video I posted explaining he experienced the almost identical "blast" phenomena there as he had in WTC1. What makes WTC2 interesting is that the plane hit the corner and a large amount of jet fuel exploded on the outside. In that post I'm still reading - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099 - only WTC1 is being talked about. NIST hypothesizes (they don't know, and no one ever will know for sure) that 40% drained into the "lower structure" at WTC1. "Lower Structure" doesn't mean "all to the basement." I think it's safe to assume that a lot less than 40% drained to lower floors in the case of WTC2, because a lot more of it burned up outside the building.

NIST's 40% estimate is rough, but remember, you only need less than 1% in the basement. There isn't that much difference between WTC 1 and 2 in this respect, only a slightly different path from impact zone to basement. Fuel quantities and distance are similar.

 

[DGM]

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).

"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?

For the time being, let's only talk about WTC2. Philip Morelli is on the video I posted explaining he experienced the almost identical "blast" phenomena there as he had in WTC1. What makes WTC2 interesting is that the plane hit the corner and a large amount of jet fuel exploded on the outside. In that post I'm still reading - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92099 - only WTC1 is being talked about. NIST hypothesizes (they don't know, and no one ever will know for sure) that 40% drained into the "lower structure" at WTC1. "Lower Structure" doesn't mean "all to the basement." I think it's safe to assume that a lot less than 40% drained to lower floors in the case of WTC2, because a lot more of it burned up outside the building.

I believe if you read RMackeys work you will find he only used 1%. This is an extremely conservative figure.

Figure a 1 PSI over pressure on a 10'x10' wall. How much force would that wall have to resist?

 

[brasil]

Completely wrong. I've discussed the fallacy of a "very specific" fuel/air mixture above. There is no requirement for a "shockwave," and there is strong evidence against any "shockwave." What we need is an overpressure event, but we do not require nor expect a supersonic one.

Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects.

One thing most people in these forums do not accept, is that it's not always either/or. If I think explosives might have been in the basement, I am not automatically saying burning jet fuel didn't make it down there as well. Has anyone considered that it could be BOTH. Maybe that's what I'm suggesting in my current revision of my own "theory." I would be ignoring a lot of evidence of burnt victims with "skin hanging off their bodies" if I was trying to argue for ONLY explosives and NO fireball, would I not?

Please, what "strong evidence" is there against any shockwave? All of these witness accounts (Rodriguez, Morelli, and Pecoraro) contain some evidence for very strong blast effects i.e. shockwaves. Having evidence to not only over-rule their eyewitness testimony and go on to prove there were no shockwaves requires a much higher burden of proof. Also, aren't "shockwaves" exactly what seismographs measure? For Columbia to get a reading they were most certainly measuring a shockwave of some sort, regardless of its source.

"Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects."

On the contrary, you need jet fuel to be the "best match" to maintain your entire argument for no explosives. I'm sure high explosives in the right amount could have created "those effects." On what basis are you saying that explosives could not have been responsible for the observed effects by these witnesses?

 

[Arus808]

One thing most people in these forums do not accept, is that it's not always either/or.

In the case of the towers, ITS either or. IT isn't both.
Sorry, but when are you going to provide that evidence where explosive residue was detected?

If I think explosives might have been in the basement, I am not automatically saying burning jet fuel didn't make it down there as well. Has anyone considered that it could be BOTH.

Seeing that EVIDENCE doesn't support explosives, of course we dont consider that 'both' were present. BECAUSE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT ONLY JET FUEL WAS THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION!


You know that pesky thing called evidence

 

[R.Mackey]

One thing most people in these forums do not accept, is that it's not always either/or. If I think explosives might have been in the basement, I am not automatically saying burning jet fuel didn't make it down there as well. Has anyone considered that it could be BOTH. Maybe that's what I'm suggesting in my current revision of my own "theory." I would be ignoring a lot of evidence of burnt victims with "skin hanging off their bodies" if I was trying to argue for ONLY explosives and NO fireball, would I not?

You would indeed be ignoring evidence of fireballs if you were "only" arguing for explosives, which other posters here have failed to grasp.

But if that's the case, you need to find some evidence for explosives. What you're postulating now is a totally distinct event, one that would have been heard and felt by everyone in the basement, one whose effects would have been seen, but in addition to the fireballs.

Nobody reports this. Not even Rodriguez.

Please, what "strong evidence" is there against any shockwave? All of these witness accounts (Rodriguez, Morelli, and Pecoraro) contain some evidence for very strong blast effects i.e. shockwaves.

The fact that nobody was killed by blast pretty much rules out high explosives.

If you want to outline the things that you think were caused, and could only be caused, by explosives, I'll be glad to point out further problems with this hypothesis. At the moment, I have no idea what effects if any you think are tied to explosives.

Having evidence to not only over-rule their eyewitness testimony and go on to prove there were no shockwaves requires a much higher burden of proof.

I haven't "over-ruled" eyewitness testimony.

Also, aren't "shockwaves" exactly what seismographs measure? For Columbia to get a reading they were most certainly measuring a shockwave of some sort, regardless of its source.

Nope. You do not need a shockwave to create a seismic signal. This is total nonsense.

"Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects."

On the contrary, you need jet fuel to be the "best match" to maintain your entire argument for no explosives. I'm sure high explosives in the right amount could have created "those effects." On what basis are you saying that explosives could not have been responsible for the observed effects by these witnesses?

As I explained in the other thread, for an explosive to have caused the scope of damage seen, it would have to have been considerably larger than the bomb set off in 1993. Such a bomb would have killed many people in the basement through blast alone. Such a bomb would have been clearly audible, and recorded in the case of the WTC 2 impact. Such a bomb would register clearly on the LDEO seismic record as a distinct and spectrally pure spike. None of this happened, ergo, no bomb.

But a fuel deflagration still fits the evidence. We also know there was fuel in the structure, and people reported fireballs. QED.

 

[brasil]

The fact that nobody was killed by blast pretty much rules out high explosives.

Wrong: Philip Morelli states in his video interview (which I posted previously) that "I saw people killed in the basement" in addition to saying he saw people who needed "reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." He is saying this in the context of the initial blasts he personally observed in both WTC1 and WTC2. Just because you keep repeating over and over that "there was no evidence of explosives" does not make it so. Why do you think Rodriguez, Pecoraro, and Morelli are still being talked about continuously with regard to this question of explosives? They are evidence for explosives going off, in addition to fireballs.

If you want to outline the things that you think were caused, and could only be caused, by explosives, I'll be glad to point out further problems with this hypothesis. At the moment, I have no idea what effects if any you think are tied to explosives.

I have already outlined those effects in my previous posts in this topic. Go back and read them again.

Nope. You do not need a shockwave to create a seismic signal. This is total nonsense.

I think it's crossing the line to call that "nonsense." There are over 6000 hits in a google search for the words "shockwave" and "seismograph." Here's a BBC story about "seismic shockwaves" being detected in Japan after an underground nuclear test. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6033893.stm I think you need to retract your comment that "shockwaves" have nothing to do with seismology. Haven't you ever heard them announce that "additional shockwaves have been measured" after the first earthquake?

As I explained in the other thread, for an explosive to have caused the scope of damage seen, it would have to have been considerably larger than the bomb set off in 1993. Such a bomb would have killed many people in the basement through blast alone. Such a bomb would have been clearly audible, and recorded in the case of the WTC 2 impact. Such a bomb would register clearly on the LDEO seismic record as a distinct and spectrally pure spike. None of this happened, ergo, no bomb.

Are you going to explain how a fireball originating almost 1000 ft. above the basement could have caused the "scope of damage seen?" Are you seriously saying that jet fuel dripping down from the top of the WTC and igniting could cause MORE damage than the 1993 bomb? I've never even heard anyone make that assertion, until you just did. I don't know anyone who would think that anything other than a bomb caused the damage seen in 1993, or greater than that amount of damage. I don't even understand how you could be saying this.

And finally, every criteria you list WAS observed: 1) the sound 2) audio and video recordings 3) the seismic record. How can you say "none of this happened" when ALL of it happened? It's just a matter of how one interprets the data. I don't know how the seismic recording will differ with a bomb compared to a plane hitting a building, and I don't think you know either. What we do know is that they recorded data at those times. You can't say this data does not exist, otherwise you are flat out ignoring it.

But a fuel deflagration still fits the evidence. We also know there was fuel in the structure, and people reported fireballs. QED.

No it doesn't. It fits some of the evidence, but not all of the evidence, hence, the title and topic of this thread, and why I'm not letting this go until either i'm convinced, you're convinced, or we run out of points to make. I'll be back after I understand "backdraft", "flash points of fuel," properties of the elevators, and anything else. There is just no way you have incontrovertible evidence, or even the best theory that no explosives were used. I'm not wed to my theory and will give it up if someone presents a better theory. You have not even close to doing that. Re-read my posts.

I'm off to go party NYC-style. Let's see what you've got tomorrow.

 

[Norseman]

Please, what "strong evidence" is there against any shockwave? All of these witness accounts (Rodriguez, Morelli, and Pecoraro) contain some evidence for very strong blast effects i.e. shockwaves. Having evidence to not only over-rule their eyewitness testimony and go on to prove there were no shockwaves requires a much higher burden of proof.

William Rodriguez to CNN september 11th 2001:

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble,

Here you can listen to the video itself. Choose the video "CNN: Distant approach shot".

The large boom etc is something Rodriguez have made up in the years after 9/11. Pecoraro only described damage entirely consistent with a rapid pressure increase caused by deflagration of jet fuel. And Morelli was first pushed over by compressed air pushed out of elevator shaft 6/7 or 50 (or both) due to falling elevator cars. Then he experienced the over pressure from the jet fuel deflagration while he was in the bathroom.

In this presentation you can se how devastating a backdraft (deflagration) with mild over pressure can be.

 

[beachnut]

I'm off to go party NYC-style. Let's see what you've got tomorrow.

All of your junk comes from 9/11 truth sites, the woo of 9/11 truth runs in all your posts. And you tried to act like you were not a truther. Sad, you seem to mislead on your first post! Party on, it seems you may be better at that than facts on 9/11. Have fun.

Wrong: Philip Morelli states in his video interview (which I posted previously) that "I saw people killed in the basement" in addition to saying he saw people who needed "reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." He is saying this in the context of the initial blasts he personally observed in both WTC1 and WTC2. Just because you keep repeating over and over that "there was no evidence of explosives" does not make it so. Why do you think Rodriguez, Pecoraro, and Morelli are still being talked about continuously with regard to this question of explosives? They are evidence for explosives going off, in addition to fireballs.

Philip proves there were no explosives, darn, listen to his story, an explosion from explosives would kill him, but the phenomena from the jet impacts would just "blow" him down. Sorry, you lost this one, from an expert on flying and engineering, you have failed to pass on this woo too. If this is the way you are going to post, I mean you posted proof you are wrong with this video interview, you are lost; go party, you have to be better at that than this.

 

[MikeW]

Here you can listen to the video itself. Choose the video "CNN: Distant approach shot".

Well spotted, but actually the full Rodriguez videos are available at http://911myths.com/index.php/William_Rodriguez . (Not that you were likely to find out for yourself, as I've not linked that page to any menu yet, but I'll get around to it eventually.)

 

[Norseman]

Well spotted, but actually the full Rodriguez videos are available at http://911myths.com/index.php/William_Rodriguez . (Not that you were likely to find out for yourself, as I've not linked that page to any menu yet, but I'll get around to it eventually.)

Thanks for the link. I spotted the short clip when I looked thorough some the Flight 175 videos you had put up some time ago. I am keenly following the development of your new site

 

[thewholesoul]

hey totovader and everbody, thewholesoul here

so maybe we could start off where we finished? morellini's testimony gives an account of two events (1) when he was walking he was thrown to the ground from the impact of the first event which he believed was in the loading dock. (2) when he was later running he experienced the second event which he assumed could have been the freight car when it collapsed.

now your initial explanation was that (1) was the plane impact + (2) was the evelvator.

you retracted this position when i pointed out the peculiarity of a plane impact 90+ floors above him causing him to be thrown to the ground. further more we know that people closer to the impact did not fall to the ground from the plane impact e.g. rodriguez and anthony which further decreased the plausibility of event (1) being the impact of a plane.

your next explanation was that (1) was the elevator and (2) was the "sound of the plane" impact.

but this explanation is clearly inconsistent with morellinis testimony since he seems to suggest that the second event (2), not the first, was the elevator crashing to the ground floor. besides would an elevator crashing to the basement floor cause a person to be thrown to the ground? perhaps? i would be sceptical.

but if event (1) was the elevator and event (2) was the "sound" of the plane impact travelling down the building. would the "sound" of the plane impact follow the elevator impact? the speed of sound is 340m/s, the plane impacted on the 93th floor which is roughly 355m above ground. so it would not take ANY longer than two seconds to reach the basement. the elevator fell because a fireball of jet fuel jetting down the elevator. so the fireball and the "sound of the plane impact" started the same time. but if the elevator fell at the speed of sound it and its occupants would surely have been crushed on impact. because the operator of the elevator survived we must reject this explanation. so the second event (2) could not have been the "sound" of the plane imapct.

so as a defender of the official story what is your explanation in relation to the testimony of morellini?

 

[beachnut]

hey totovader and everbody, thewholesoul here

so maybe we could start off where we finished? morellini's testimony gives an account of two events (1) when he was walking he was thrown to the ground from the impact of the first event which he believed was in the loading dock. (2) when he was later running he experienced the second event which he assumed could have been the freight car when it collapsed.

now your initial explanation was that (1) was the plane impact + (2) was the evelvator.

you retracted this position when i pointed out the peculiarity of a plane impact 90+ floors above him causing him to be thrown to the ground. further more we know that people closer to the impact did not fall to the ground from the plane impact e.g. rodriguez and anthony which further decreased the plausibility of event (1) being the impact of a plane.

your next explanation was that (1) was the elevator and (2) was the "sound of the plane" impact.

but this explanation is clearly inconsistent with morellinis testimony since he seems to suggest that the second event (2), not the first, was the elevator crashing to the ground floor. besides would an elevator crashing to the basement floor cause a person to be thrown to the ground? perhaps? i would be sceptical.

but if event (1) was the elevator and event (2) was the "sound" of the plane impact travelling down the building. would the "sound" of the plane impact follow the elevator impact? the speed of sound is 340m/s, the plane impacted on the 93th floor which is roughly 355m above ground. so it would not take ANY longer than two seconds to reach the basement. the elevator fell because a fireball of jet fuel jetting down the elevator. so the fireball and the "sound of the plane impact" started the same time. but if the elevator fell at the speed of sound it and its occupants would surely have been crushed on impact. because the operator of the elevator survived we must reject this explanation. so the second event (2) could not have been the "sound" of the plane imapct.

so as a defender of the official story what is your explanation in relation to the testimony of morellini?

Please tell me the speed of sound in steel, and buildings, as pertains to 9/11 and the perceptions of people in the basement.

19 terrorist took 4 planes and tried to kill Americans on 9/11. That is what happen on 9/11. Please explain why that does not fit the junk you will try to push after your initial stupid question? Your post included testimony that supports the "official story" you just are not capable of understanding it. (do I win the money, I want the 1,000 k bucks now!)

 

[R.Mackey]

Wrong: Philip Morelli states in his video interview (which I posted previously) that "I saw people killed in the basement" in addition to saying he saw people who needed "reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." He is saying this in the context of the initial blasts he personally observed in both WTC1 and WTC2. Just because you keep repeating over and over that "there was no evidence of explosives" does not make it so. Why do you think Rodriguez, Pecoraro, and Morelli are still being talked about continuously with regard to this question of explosives? They are evidence for explosives going off, in addition to fireballs.

I am not wrong.

These people were not killed by blast. They were killed (and injured) by blunt trauma, and fires, and so on. Not blast.

I would guess that Rodriguez and Pecoraro and Morelli are "still being talked about continuously" because the Truth Movement doesn't understand explosives, yet desperately wants there to be explosives, for reasons I've never been able to fathom. Whether or not my guess is correct, their statements are not consistent with explosives.

I have already outlined those effects in my previous posts in this topic. Go back and read them again.

You missed the point. You are now speculating -- and I think you're the only one to do so; certainly the only one I've ever encountered -- that there were (a) jet fuel deflagrations and (b) high explosive detonations at the same time. I need to know what effects you ascribe to what causes. Proceed.

I think it's crossing the line to call that "nonsense." There are over 6000 hits in a google search for the words "shockwave" and "seismograph." Here's a BBC story about "seismic shockwaves" being detected in Japan after an underground nuclear test. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6033893.stm I think you need to retract your comment that "shockwaves" have nothing to do with seismology. Haven't you ever heard them announce that "additional shockwaves have been measured" after the first earthquake?

I will not retract that comment. You do not need a shockwave to create a seismic signal. Seismographs can detect distinctly subsonic phenomena, such as aircraft impacts into buildings, building collapses, and even passing trucks on the street.

Do you even know what a shockwave is? I do. I once wrote a thesis about them.

Are you going to explain how a fireball originating almost 1000 ft. above the basement could have caused the "scope of damage seen?"

Another strawman. I never said there was one fireball, originating 1000 feet above the basement, that damaged the basement. The evidence very, very strongly suggests there were several fireballs. I have explained the factors leading to creation of these fireballs exhaustively.

Are you seriously saying that jet fuel dripping down from the top of the WTC and igniting could cause MORE damage than the 1993 bomb? I've never even heard anyone make that assertion, until you just did. I don't know anyone who would think that anything other than a bomb caused the damage seen in 1993, or greater than that amount of damage. I don't even understand how you could be saying this.

What I've said, mostly in the other thread, is that the fireball damaged a larger area than the WTC bomb. This is fact. The fireball, however, did less structural damage than the WTC bomb. This is the difference between a deflagration and a detonation. To create damage over the area seen in the WTC 1 and 2 basement with a detonation, you would have vastly more severe blast effects at the point of origin, and this simplly did not happen. You would have a much higher overpressure closer to the explosives, enough to kill people stone dead, and this too did not happen.

Now do you understand? You cannot think only in one dimension. Explosive effects involve volume, impact, blast, heat, overpressure strength and rise time -- numerous factors. Some of those in the WTC basements were more severe than in the 1993 bombing. Some were not.

And finally, every criteria you list WAS observed: 1) the sound 2) audio and video recordings 3) the seismic record. How can you say "none of this happened" when ALL of it happened? It's just a matter of how one interprets the data. I don't know how the seismic recording will differ with a bomb compared to a plane hitting a building, and I don't think you know either. What we do know is that they recorded data at those times. You can't say this data does not exist, otherwise you are flat out ignoring it.

No, none of it happened. A bomb explosion anywhere near the size of the 1993 bombing (or larger), going off several seconds after aircraft impact, would have been obvious to everyone. It would have thrown shrapnel and caused locally severe structural damage. It would have created a distinct, sharp spike on seismic records. You simply have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I strongly suggest you try to learn more about these subjects before you return. So far you're batting zero.

No it doesn't. It fits some of the evidence, but not all of the evidence, hence, the title and topic of this thread, and why I'm not letting this go until either i'm convinced, you're convinced, or we run out of points to make. I'll be back after I understand "backdraft", "flash points of fuel," properties of the elevators, and anything else. There is just no way you have incontrovertible evidence, or even the best theory that no explosives were used. I'm not wed to my theory and will give it up if someone presents a better theory. You have not even close to doing that. Re-read my posts.

I've presented you a better theory, but you show no signs of giving up your own. Nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever for your own theory. Everything you've presented is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

Besides, why would anyone set off explosives during the jet fuel explosions? How? What would be the point? This is total madness.

 

[Gravy]

Short of calling up Mike Pecoraro, is there any way to know for sure what kind of press was in that machine shop?

Classic, classic truther investigative method into these extremely important "inside job bombings."

"There's something I really need to know. Please, JREF forum sages, tell me how I can find out without contacting the people who have the answer."



You really give a damn, brasil, don't you? Your country's trying to kill you and you won't even make a phone call.

Classic.
Classic.
Classic.