View Single Post
Old 27th November 2007, 10:17 PM   #55
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Hmmm firefighters after impact and and after basement explosions in the basement instead of the impact zone. It sure sounds like firefighting efforts were split to me.
Look, this line of argument is not only pointless, it's just plain bizarre.

You attempted to argue that, perhaps, someone "planted explosives" in the sublevels specifically to distract firefighting efforts from the impact zone.

The firefighters never even got to the impact zone, excepting only the superhuman Chief Orio Palmer (RIP with honor), and he was a ruddy marathon runner with a light gear load. You can't split the firefighting efforts because there weren't any. This "diversion" of yours could only (potentially) delay rescue operations on floors above ground but well below impact. Firefighting upstairs was hindered by logistics, and any such distractions would have been utterly superfluous.

Besides, why divert them in the first place? According to you, the Towers weren't just loaded with decoy explosives, they were also demolished by explosives, and not fire. So why bother? The firefighting efforts would have been utterly futile. According to you, that building was coming down, fire or no fire. So why contradict yourself?

Honestly, is that the best reason you can come up with for "explosives" in the basement? It's preposterous.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
The standpipe's 294A and B as well as the jockeypump were located in the basement hence the desire to eliminate this firefighting process.

You realize that the explosion on the 22nd floor knocked out the Secure Command Center's ability to manually start the sprinkler system? Oh well, sorry I got off topic there.
As I've already remarked, according to you, hindering firefighting efforts is pointless since you believe the fire was inconsequential. Ignoring that for a moment, the basement standpipe and jockeypump, as well as the manual controls elsewhere, wouldn't do anybody any good anyway. The standpipes were broken at the impact zone. There was an effort underway to manually reroute the standpipes as firefighters ascended, but it never completed and may have been futile in any event. So, once again, you have no compelling reason for mythical "explosives" on the lower levels. None.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
I'm sorry but if you would have sourced it, I would not have asked for your source.
Correction -- if you bothered to read carefully, you wouldn't have asked for the source. It's not my fault. I did source it.

In this post, note the underline below the words "were lifts that did fall." That's a link, much like the one you cliked on under "this post" to get there. It takes you to the USA Today article in question. Fully sourced. Months ago. Your powers of observation do not convey a sense of general competence.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Where did I get the idea? From NIST. I thought you were the resident expert on the NIST report.

Arturo Griffith's account from the USA Today source of course disproves the car 50 crash nonsense as do the emergency brakes on the other car and their maintenance.
Why yes, I might be among the local NIST Report experts. I misunderstood you -- it appeared that you had some other source that disputed NIST's conclusion, namely that several elevators were cut by the impact, and fell deep into the structure.

If you're complaining that the freight elevator (50) didn't actually hit bottom, as NIST sugggests, but instead miraculously halted between the B-1 and B-2 levels, then you're correct; NIST is slightly inaccurate with respect to this detail. However, this has no impact on the viability of the jet fuel path, nor the damage caused by its deflagration. I fail to see what you're complaining about.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Explosives doesn't make sense? LOL. [...] Yet when a similar explosion takes place in the basement that reminded others of the 1993 truck bomb and indeed caused damage that reminded them of a truck bomb, instead of accepting the most logical excuse, a truck bomb, the implausibility of a jet fuel explosion is offered with only assumptions to support that theory.

Why is everyone so resistant to a truck bomb in the basement anyway? Yet accept without question and without proof, jet fuel.
Laugh while you can. Explosives make absolutely no sense, as I am about to demonstrate to you again.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
You shouldn't have any problems answering these questions in regards to the jet fuel phenomena. Or did you avoid them?

1. Simply trace the route and the amount of the jet fuel, in liquid or fireball form from the initial impact to the basement areas and still account for the survivors located within the elevators. [Etc.]
Poster Norseman answered this skillfully, even though I know you've been given the answer numerous times before, three times by me alone. Read his answer, and please stop asking. It makes you seem... simple.

I will tackle the energy "questions," below.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Hey we agree on something!! Let's see some numbers in support of the jet fuel excuse. I've been looking for years for that and I can't seem to find any.

You've got to love the sheer arrogance of this guy. He says, out of the frickin' blue, that "jet fuel didn't have enough energy to do that much damage." I call him on it, and demand to see his numbers. Does he provide numbers? Of course not. He provides no support at all, and demands numbers from me.

As much as I'd appreciate a straight answer from you once in a while, Swing, I have to admit that it would be so startling, I'd have to suppress the impulse to suspect you of loaning your account to somebody else.

I'll give you straight answers, though. Here's some: I don't think you even have any numbers. I think you made that up out of thin air. I don't think you have the math to find out, one way or the other.

But I do.

Here's your questions:

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
First, before I accept this information, can you source the 24,000 pounds of fuel from the NIST report.
Second, what class of explosives are you referring to?
Third, can you provide the necessary numbers to prove jet fuel caused the amount of damage in the basement levels?

Fourth, why are you using the energy equivalent of remaining jet fuel after the impact to prove 100,000 pounds of explosives in each basement had to be used? You would be better off to show the process and data behind the jet fuel to prove it caused the destruction witnessed.

If you sincerely believe in the jet fuel excuse then it should be easy to answer the following questions:
1. Can you source the amount in pounds of jet fuel in each tower after the initial impact and explosion?

2. Second, can your provide the fuel/air ratio necessary for the explosion as well as blast pressure data?

3. Third, can you provide the calculations supporting the official story that jet fuel fireball caused the damage in the basement? You know those energy
numbers NIST didn't provide in their report.

4. Fourth, can you provide any witnesses who saw the amount of jet fuel you claimed did or could do the damage in the multiple levels of the basement?

Yet debunkers accept as fact the jet fuel excuse without anyway to quantify the damage to the basement with numbers that mean anything despite the historical record of terrorists, the FBI's working theory, the eyewitness descriptions, etc, etc.! Go figure!
In order, here are the answers.

1. 24,000 pounds of fuel is the estimate that NIST gave for the amount of fuel running into the lower structure. NIST estimated that there were 66,100 pounds of fuel in AA11 and 62,000 pounds in UA175 at impact (NCSTAR1-2B, pg. 171). Of those totals, NIST estimated that 20% was consumed in the initial fireballs, 40% was distributed on the impact floors, and 40% drained or flowed into the lower structure (NCSTAR1-5F pg. 56).

Yes, these are rough estimates, and I am on record criticizing these estimates in my whitepaper. However, working out a better estimate either through investigation or modeling would be a nontrivial undertaking, and for now, it's the best we have. Certainly it's in the right ballpark.

2. I'm referring to all chemical explosives. The energy density of Jet A is approximately 43 MJ / kg (remember that number for later). The typical yardstick, TNT, is a mere 4.2 MJ / kg, ten times less. Exotic, impractical, high-powered explosives such as octanitrocubane only get up to about 7.5 to 8 MJ / kg, still a factor of five below Jet A. It really doesn't matter what explosive compound you fantasize about, they just aren't going to give you more energy than the jet fuel, unless you propose a fantastic amount of it. I can only assume you don't know much about explosives.

3. As a matter of fact, I can prove that jet fuel could cause the damage seen. This step is a long one.

To begin, let us model the problem as follows: Suppose the entire basement of a Tower suffered an overpressure event, sufficient to cause the observed damage. We can describe the damage qualitatively:
  • There was extensive damage to interior and furniture over a wide area.
  • Damage to the structure, however, was minor to negligible.
  • There are no reports of anyone being killed by the blast. The principal danger was fire.
Based on these factors, we estimate that the magnitude of the pressure pulse was moderate, in the range of 1 PSI, since overpressures of 5 PSI typically damage or destroy all but hardened structures, and would have surely killed many who were inside. Nevertheless, we want to overestimate the energy requirement to make absolutely certain that my contention -- that the jet fuel is more than sufficient -- is true. We will use the higher, less credible estimate of 5 PSI. In proper units, this is 34.5 kPa.

Next, suppose the deflagration pressurized the entire volume of the basement to 5 PSI. This is another deliberate overestimate. In actual fact, the overpressure would be a wave rather than a static phenomenon, and thus the true energy requirements are much, much lower. Let us suppose that the basement area was the size of the WTC footprint (64 m square) times a depth of 25 m, sufficient for at least six sublevels. This is a total volume of roughly 100,000 m3.

Next, we work out the energy required to raise that entire volume by the pressure differential required. There are several ways to calculate this, depending on your model of the process. The simplest is to consider the Bernoulli energy density, in which case E = ΔP V, but this only applies in non-dissipative processes along streamlines, and is generally an underestimate. At the other extreme, we can consider an increase in pressure due to heating in a constant-volume process, which is maximally entropic and will overestimate the energy required. We will use the latter extreme.

To solve the energy density in this fashion, we simply apply the Ideal Gas Law, in this case expressed as follows:

ΔP V = n R ΔT (1)

where n is the number of moles of gas and R is the gas constant.

After we solve for the increase in temperature, we can then extract the energy required from the simple expression:

E = ρ V cs ΔT (2)

where ρ is the density of air and hence ρ V is the total mass of air, and cs is the specific heat capacity of air.

Substituting for ΔT in (2) using a rearrangement of (1), we find that:

E = ρ V2 cs ΔP / n R (3)

Or, using the shorthand N = ρ V / n where N is the molar mass of air, i.e. the number of grams per mol, we arrive at the answer:

E = N V cs ΔP / R (4)

Values for these constants are as follows:
  • N = 28.97 g / mol
  • cs = 1.012 J / g K
  • R = 8.31 Pa m3 / mol K
And so we find that:

E = 3.53 V ΔP (5)

In other words, this formulation is roughly 3.5 times the energy of the Bernoulli approach. All that work for a lousy factor of 3.5. So it goes.

We are now ready to compute the answer. In our problem, V = 100,000 m3, and ΔP = 34.5 kPa. Therefore, the energy required in our model -- understanding, again, that it is a deliberate overestimate -- is equal to:

E = 3.53 (100,000 m3) (34.5 kPa) = 12.5 GJ

12.5 GJ is a lot of energy. But how much is that in terms of jet fuel? Now recall that jet fuel has an energy density of 43 MJ / kg. This means, in order to get this much energy, we need (12.5 GJ) / (43 MJ / kg) = 290 kilograms of jet fuel.

That's all. 290 kg, or about 640 pounds, 375 liters, just under 100 US gallons.

I remind you, this is a wild overestimate. In practice, the fuel will probably not all burn at once, and will not be terribly efficient, but the constant-volume method above captures all of these effects. The actual number might be two to ten times smaller if we did it carefully, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable.

I'll hurry through the rest of the questions.

4. To do the same amount of damage with explosives, using the ratios already discussed above, you would need about 2900 kg of TNT, or 1450 kg of the obscure and never-used octanitrocubane. Any explosive you pick will land somewhere in the middle or perhaps heavier than these figures. That's a heck of a big boom.

5. This is a repeat of Question 1. See above for the source of the jet fuel amounts.

6. I can only assume that your question about mixing ratios is a desperate clutch at straws. Jet fuel's mixture ratio is 0.044 by mass. Our 290 kg of jet fuel would thus require 6591 kg of air, or a volume of 5492 m3, or about 5% of the volume treated in the above exercise. There is plenty of air to get it done. Nice try.

7. Repeat of Question 3.

8. I have no need to provide witnesses. The level of destruction that would be wrought by my model explosion above is greater than even the most speculative cherry-picked assessment of witness reports. This is the value of doing a bracketing or "worst case" analysis. I can afford to sacrifice precision, since the effect is so obviously within the capability of a jet fuel explosion.

9. It should now be perfectly obvious why we accept the jet fuel argument, and why we reject the "truck bomb" argument. But for your benefit, I'll state it anyway:
  • Remember how big the "truck bomb" was in 1993? 1300 pounds of various low to moderate explosives, call it 1000 pounds TNT equivalent. My jet fuel situation above is about five times more powerful. You'd have to spec an awfully big truck.
  • Despite being smaller than my jet fuel case, the 1993 truck bomb woke up the whole damn town. No way to conceal that. Forget it. It would be totally obvious that high explosives had been used. The jet fuel, on the other hand, delivers its blast as a deflagration, and is totally consistent with witness statements, both inside and outside the structure.
  • Even a smaller truck bomb, on par with the 1993 event, would have killed people through blast and shrapnel. Didn't happen. So you must have a smaller truck bomb. This contradicts the points above, thus the hypothesis is DOA.
  • Unlike truck bombs, it's clear to everyone that there was jet fuel in massive quantities running all over the place. There's no evidence for explosives. The "excuse" is yours.
  • How anyone would trigger a bomb coincident with a jetliner impact is almost too incredible to contemplate. Was someone watching with his finger on the button? Why? What's the point?


I strongly suspect this entire exercise won't change your totally unsupported and fantastical beliefs one bit, but maybe I'm wrong. Justify my optimism. Try to understand. Take all the time you need.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top