ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc1

Reply
Old 6th May 2008, 02:59 AM   #201
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
1: elevator cars are not airtight that means that if liquid, vapour or gas were hurdling down the shaft they must have entered the elevator car given the over pressure.
You appear to be committing a fallacy here - liquid, vapour or gas and fall down a shaft without there being overpressure.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The occupants within the elevator did not report seeing or smelling jet fuel vapour or gas entering the car. This is not possible because humans can smell jet fuel as low as 1 part per million
Denying the antecedent.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
moreover when the occupants arrived at b2-3 level they did not report smelling any jet fuel eventhough the supposedly jet fuel explosion had occured moments earlier.
Denying the antecedent.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
2: elevator car 50 apllied its emergency breaks producing sparks, yet these sparks were unable to ignite the descending jet fuel in liquid, vapour and/or gas form?
Argument from incredulity.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Eventhough though in post #187 Henry Waisers testimony clearly mentions how the sparks caused presumably descending jet fuel to burst into flames.
Affirming the consequent.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
3: according to mackey’s personal theory, jet fuel descended the freight elevator shaft and pooled in the shaft pit. Yet the explosion occurs above the shaft pit at floor b2-3.
False dilemma.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
4: you say “The fuel almost certainly ignited at several different places” which sounds very random yet these spontaneous ignitions managed to destroy the mechanical rooms in both towers disabling the water pumping system. doesnt sound very random to me.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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
Old 6th May 2008, 07:25 AM   #202
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
you argued is "week" - opps another spelling error!

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
It's "passed". The word you're looking for is "passed".

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but in a smug and self-congratulatory post, it kind of undercuts the desired effect if you can't manage to correctly spell the one word you bolded for emphasis.
That was a test.
I just wanted to see if anyone would notice...congratulations. but to claim a spelling error undermines the premise and conclusions of my post is simply ridiculous.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Also, it should be noted that this narrative is not entirely factual.
The above comment was in response to the following statement:

arturo griffith or marlene cruz report no sparks, no heat, no flames, in fact there is no mention or even the slighest allusion that a fireball had past their car. kinda strange dont you think? and lets not forget, this fireball had the strength to blown down the shaft door at b2-3, the PATH, turn carparks into rubble etc yet it magically did no harm to car 50, the shaft, or its occupants. there wasnt even a smell of jet fuel detected by griffith or cruz either!!!

There is absolutely nothing factually incorrect about my above statement. Let me repeat myself “arturo griffith or marlene cruz report no sparks, no heat, no flames, in fact there is no mention or even the slighest allusion that a fireball had passed their car”

You then claim that
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Griffith and Cruz certainly did experience the indications of a fireball's presence, and were fortunately pulled from freight car 50A just before it came down the shaft.
1.you support this claim using testimony from arturo griffth. Firstly “the whole car shook” does not indicate the presence of a fireball. many people in many parts of the building experienced shaking upon the impact of the plane that doesnt mean there was a fireball present . Henry waiser also experienced being “rocked” from the plane impact but the flames he experienced later were a distinct and separate incident from being “rocked”. Secondly “i felt the explosion” does not indicate the presence of a fireball because if a fireball actually is “felt” it tends to be extremely warm, bright and dangerous. Please re-read henry waiser’s testimony in post #187 which i specifically provided to contrast the experience of when a fireball engulfs your elevator car (waiser) and when it does not (griffith and cruz).

2.next let us analysis your claim a little further: “Griffith and Cruz certainly did experience the indications of a fireball's presence”. You should be a politician my friend with that slippery language. As explained being shaken or rocked does not necessarily indicate the presence of a fireball. Moreover i specifically stated that they did not experience a fireball PASSING their elevator car which had to have occured since their elevator shaft was the ONLY route the magic fireball could have taken which had access to the basement levels. furthermore the massive explosion in basement levels occured BEFORE their elevator car arrived at b1 level. the fireball sometime afterwards that nearly killed them as they were pulled from the elevator car was NOT the magic fireball because the damage was ALREADY DONE to the basement levels BEFORE that particular fireball arrived.

3.even if this later fireball had passed their car they would have surely noticed. Now because we know this later fireball did neglible damage as compared to the magic fireball we know that the magic fireball must have been even bigger and stronger in order to cause so much damage to multiple levels of the basement. there is no way the official theory is true because the magic fireball would have destroyed the elevator car 50 and its occupants when it passed over them – because it did not we know the official theory is untrue.

4.you may have pointed out a spelling error, well done, shame the rest of your argument is utter rubbish.
thewholesoul 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
Old 6th May 2008, 01:49 PM   #203
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
why do you lie and ignore the FACT that the column shapes at the basement level were built up from steel plate 3 inches thick? any device strong enough to "weaken" a column made up of 3 inch plate would have killed everyone in all the basement levels. The planes compromised the sprinkler system by cutting off the pipes at the impact level. Pumps had nothing to do with it.
Debunked. You are nothing more than a fantasist and terrorist apologist.
1. please refrain from calling me a liar when i had no knowledge of that fact.

2. in 1993 there was a truck bomb intended to destroy or weaken the core columns in the basement levels despite the 3 inch plate steel and it didnt kill everyone in all the basement levels. your point is mute. Besides their are a variety of reasons and motivations behind the use of secondary devices aside from weakening the core structure. furthermore the official story argues that a fire allegedly waekened the core columns themselves not just the plate steel yet there is photos of people standing in the imapct zone waving for help!!!

2. According to mackeys calculations 280kg of jet fuel was enough to damage multiple floors in the basement, yet as hardlines mentions in his post #109 1000 to 3000 kg of jet fuel deflagrated on impact. However nobody died on the on the 91st floor just below the imapct zone, there was no report of cave-ins and the alumium cladding was not even knocked off the perimeter columns at the impact zone. How is this possible? It makes no sense at all comparing damage to the impact zone and damage to the basement when we consider the estimated amount of jet fuel involved in both cases.

3. in norsemans post #104 he provides a video link to deflagrations and detonations. What i would love to see is a deflagration of 280kgs of jet fuel with several of the same kind of walls as in the wtc placed infront of the blast. Its a simple experiment that could answer a lot of questions.

4. the planes were not the only thing that compromised the sprinkler system. explosions took out the standpipe's 294A and B as well as the jockeypump were located in the basement. the explosion on the 22nd floor knocked out the Secure Command Center's ability to manually start the sprinkler system. And command centers were knocked out in BOTH towers! Did you know that there was a back up power line running through the PATH system? For the magic fireball to cause a cave in at the PATH system it had to travel down 400 metres beyond the freight elevator shaft pit then take a horizontal turn breaking through several walls. Thats simply incredible given the fact that the elevator car of arthur griffith was not destroyed by this same fireball. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...#entry14699017

5. i am no fanatasist – false flag terrorism is a reality bubba and in my eyes your are apologising for the terrorists in washington. The truth will out my friend and there is nothing you can do about it. so why dont you turn on your tv and keep drinking that coolaid
thewholesoul 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
Old 6th May 2008, 02:55 PM   #204
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,791
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
5. i am no fanatasist – false flag terrorism is a reality bubba and in my eyes your are apologising for the terrorists in washington. The truth will out my friend and there is nothing you can do about it. so why dont you turn on your tv and keep drinking that coolaid
LOL

You are a dyed in the wool, drank the Kool-Aid special edition no fact truther. You need to try again. So far you have messed up all the evidence, and citing loose change as a source is the master blunder, of your faulty research.
beachnut 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
Old 6th May 2008, 03:14 PM   #205
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
1. please refrain from calling me a liar when i had no knowledge of that fact.
It remains. you are a liar
Quote:

2. in 1993 there was a truck bomb intended to destroy or weaken the core columns in the basement levels despite the 3 inch plate steel and it didnt kill everyone in all the basement levels. your point is mute.
intending to destroy. which it didn't. It was not powerful enough to destroy the columns. So no. My point is not moot or even mute. Please familiarize yourself with the usage of the word as well as the spelling.
Quote:
Besides their are a variety of reasons and motivations behind the use of secondary devices aside from weakening the core structure.
besides, you will have to drop the canard that any explosives were used to weaken the core columns.
Quote:
furthermore the official story argues that a fire allegedly waekened the core columns themselves not just the plate steel yet there is photos of people standing in the imapct zone waving for help!!!
this was many stories up. where the columns were thinner. and they also suffered impact damage. You do remember the planes don't you?
Quote:

2. According to mackeys calculations 280kg of jet fuel was enough to damage multiple floors in the basement, yet as hardlines mentions in his post #109 1000 to 3000 kg of jet fuel deflagrated on impact. However nobody died on the on the 91st floor just below the imapct zone, there was no report of cave-ins and the alumium cladding was not even knocked off the perimeter columns at the impact zone.
Well there you go blatantly lying again.
http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931729

Quote:
How is this possible? It makes no sense at all comparing damage to the impact zone and damage to the basement when we consider the estimated amount of jet fuel involved in both cases.

3. in norsemans post #104 he provides a video link to deflagrations and detonations. What i would love to see is a deflagration of 280kgs of jet fuel with several of the same kind of walls as in the wtc placed infront of the blast. Its a simple experiment that could answer a lot of questions.
Your simple experimt was duplicated by the terrorists at 9:02:40 am
Quote:

4. the planes were not the only thing that compromised the sprinkler system. explosions took out the standpipe's 294A and B as well as the jockeypump were located in the basement. the explosion on the 22nd floor knocked out the Secure Command Center's ability to manually start the sprinkler system. And command centers were knocked out in BOTH towers! Did you know that there was a back up power line running through the PATH system? For the magic fireball to cause a cave in at the PATH system it had to travel down 400 metres beyond the freight elevator shaft pit then take a horizontal turn breaking through several walls. Thats simply incredible given the fact that the elevator car of arthur griffith was not destroyed by this same fireball.
I have been on that path system In that station. It did not collapse until the buildings collapsed.
Quote:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...#entry14699017

5. i am no fanatasist – false flag terrorism is a reality bubba and in my eyes your are apologising for the terrorists in washington. The truth will out my friend and there is nothing you can do about it. so why dont you turn on your tv and keep drinking that coolaid
First of all. its Kool aide not coolaid that you are chugging there child. It is your fanrtasy, you need to wash that alex jones *** out of your eyes. When you reach your mid twenties you will grow out of it.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 6th May 2008 at 03:15 PM.
A W Smith 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
Old 6th May 2008, 06:06 PM   #206
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
That was a test.
I just wanted to see if anyone would notice...congratulations. but to claim a spelling error undermines the premise and conclusions of my post is simply ridiculous.




4.you may have pointed out a spelling error, well done, shame the rest of your argument is utter rubbish.
Perhaps, but I recommend working a few capital letters into your posts. Otherwise, you're making some important points.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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
Old 8th May 2008, 09:42 AM   #207
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't think he knows what the inside of a elevator shaft looks like. I think he's picturing a closed tube of some sort when in reality its more like an open section in the core of the building. Two or more shafts may occupy the same area with nothing but space between them.
wrong. it is you who do not understand. to quote the bible of NIST


Quote:
Elevators were the primary mode of routine ingress and egress from the towers for tens of thousands of people daily. In order to minimize the total floor space needed for elevators, each tower was divided vertically into three zones by skylobbies, which served to distribute passengers among express and local elevators. In this way, the local elevators within a zone were placed on top of one another within a common shaft. Local elevators serving the lower portion of a zone were terminated to return to the space occupied by those shafts to leasable tenant space. People transferred from express elevators to local elevators at the skylobbies which were located on the 44th and 78th floors in both towers. Each tower had 99 passenger and 7 freight elevators, all located within the core of the building. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf (PDF pg.39)
as i keep trying to explain to you there was three zones. thats one, two, three. that means that although elevators shared the same shaft in one zone, vertically in respect to local elevators, the shaft terminated before the skylobby. if the shaft did not terminate then the jet fuel would have spilt down from the local elevator shafts in zone III all the way down to the lobby. let me say that again....if the shaft did not terminate then the jet fuel would have spilt down from the local elevators shafts in zone III all the way down to the lobby. only the cables of elevators in zone III were severed. only the shafts of elevators in zone III were severed. why do you think NIST claims that the only elevator shafts that jet fuel could have travelled down to reach the lobby was fright elevator shaft 50 and express elevators 6 and 7? why? let me explain this again real simple. elevators were divided into three vertical zones.

so the question remains unanswered. how did the jet fuel travel down the utility shaft 50, and express elevator shaft 6 and 7 then TRANSFER into local elevator shafts in zone I? this is not possible. i am unable to rationally accept that the jet fuel can fall down the aforementioned shafts, stop, and take a horizonatal turn. i completely understand that the local elevators shared the same shaft so in zone III jet fuel transfer likely occured. but local elevator shafts terminated at the end of their respective zone and the jet fuel from the impact zone had no access, repeat NO ACCESS, to the elevator shaft in zone I because the elevator shaft of zone I it did not run through the impacted zone III. if the jet fuel did have access to the local elevator shaft in zone I, then NIST would obviously have said so. the reason they didnt is because, like me, they can look at a schematic diagram, understand that there were three zones dividing the elevator shafts into three vertical sections.

so my learned friend, can you explain how the local elevators in zone I were rendered inoperable? how were their cables cut? how come the doors were exploded outwards not inwards which proves that what caused this to happen did not shoot out from the freight or express elevator shaft doors?

Some testimony from gravy’s william rodriguez: escape artist
According to the accounts I have heard, Debbie was in the lobby waiting for an elevator when AA Flight 11 hit on 93. The jet fuel from the plane poured down the elevator shafts. Owing to the way the elevators are laid out, I don't understand how the fuel got into the elevator that she was waiting for. There are / (were) "Sky Lobbies" on 44 and on 78. So to go above those floors, you took an express elevator to the appropriate sky lobby and then transferred to a local elevator. The elevator machinery was located on the floors above the sky lobbies; only a very few shafts continued all the way up . Anyway, apparently she was in the lobby, the elevator shaftway doors opened and a fireball hit her with full force. She survived and was taken to a hospital with 90% burns. After lingering for about 50 days she died.

Firefighter John Moribito: I noticed that some of the elevators had been blown out of their shafts. They came down and crashed out of the shaft. They were buckled, and I had noticed that there were people still in the elevators. I believe that they were at that point deceased.

Would you not agree that the family of these indivuduals are owed a rational explanation? Are you going to continue avoiding my questions? How did the jet fuel enter the local elevator shafts in zone I? How did the elevator cars crash down in zone I when only the cables of elevators in zone III were cut? Is it not obvious that the magic fireball theory is redundant? How do you expect to change my mind, to rationally convince me that the magic fireball theory is true when you fail to answer straight forward questions?

The answer is obvious, the elevators were cut to prevent firemen reaching and extinquishing the fires. They were most likely cut with planted explosives, not a magic fireball which had absolutely no access to them.

peace
thewholesoul 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
Old 8th May 2008, 10:10 AM   #208
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
argument from impossibility

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
You appear to be committing a fallacy here - liquid, vapour or gas and fall down a shaft without there being overpressure.

Denying the antecedent.

Denying the antecedent.

Argument from incredulity.

Affirming the consequent.

False dilemma.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
your response reminds me off another (todovader) who eventually put me on ignore as opposed to debating.

i will make this argument real simple so you can answer with your intellectual sound bites.

true or false?

1. the offical position is that a fireball came shooting down the elevator shaft.
(i can back this up with quotes from the bible of NIST)

2. the official position is that only the freight car shaft had access from the impact zone to the sub basement levels.
(i can back this up with quotes from the bible of NIST)

3. it is not simply incredible its impossible that a fireball could pass the occupants of elevator car 50 undected and without causing damage to that car.
(i could support this argument with the testimony of henry waiser and common sense)

4. because no fireball was detected by the occupants of car 50 and we know that the sublevel basements recieved extensive damage on several levels we must abandon the official theory and seek another explanation for the damage in the sublevel basement.

you have two possible counter arguments:

(a) abandon the official position in relation to the fireball and resort to jet fuel in liquid, vapour, or gas form passing the elevator car. this route will render you in contradiction with the official theory you claim to defend.

(b) explain to me why you find it credible that the fireball responsible for the multilevel damage witnessed in the sublevel basemet could have passed the elevator car 50 undetected. this route if you decide to take it should provide a few laughs.

so good luck in that amigo looking forward to your response

Last edited by thewholesoul; 8th May 2008 at 10:12 AM.
thewholesoul 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
Old 8th May 2008, 10:45 AM   #209
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
answer post 207 and 208 convincingly and i will nolonger be a toofer

Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
intending to destroy. which it didn't. It was not powerful enough to destroy the columns. So no. My point is not mute.
if i remember correctly your point was that any bomb that could weaken the core columns would have needed enough power to destroy the 3 inch steel plates around each column which in turn would have killed everyone on the floor

answer - a thermate cutter charge would cut through those steel plates and columns like butter without killing everyone on the floor. your point was and still is redundant

Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
besides, you will have to drop the canard that any explosives were used to weaken the core columns.
if core columns were cut by incendary devices would that not serve to weaken the core column?

Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Your simple experiment was duplicated by the terrorists at 9:02:40 am
hahahhahah, is that right kid? the terrorists or mad scientists should i say were actually conducting experiments that day. who'd have thought eh. reminds of another equally ludicrous response i recieved once, that by crashing planes into the towers the terrorists were actually conducting an experiment on progressive collapse!

i made a simple suggestion that could easily be replicated in a controled environment and most likely has already been done. i would just like to see the effects of a deflgration of 28kg on the same building material as in the wtc with my own eyes. and like many in here you think your smarter than you actually are and so respond accordingly - with a not so smart answer.

Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
I have been on that path system In that station. It did not collapse until the buildings collapsed.
lie, because you witnessed the cave-in after the collapse does not mean that the cave-in did not occur before the collapse.

heres how i know
Quote:
PAPD officer 33: there’s also been a cave-in at the platform of the PATH plaza...theres a live electrical, water running. Turn off the power to that area.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...#entry14699017

Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
First of all. its Kool aide not coolaid that you are chugging there child. It is your fanrtasy, you need to wash that alex jones *** out of your eyes. When you reach your mid twenties
cute.

but again your not as smart as you think you are.
why dont you explain how shaft to shaft transfer of the fireball occured?
why dont you explain how the fireball passed the elevator car 50 undetected?
you are defending the official lie right¿? so lets hear it. convice me and anyone else reading with reason and logic...address my post #207 and #208. but your not going to are you, you’d rather avoid answering these problems drectly, and believe in the bible of NIST, magic fireballs, and impossibility.

peace

Last edited by thewholesoul; 8th May 2008 at 10:50 AM.
thewholesoul 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
Old 8th May 2008, 08:56 PM   #210
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
cloudshipsrule owned

In response to the question how could a fireball pass elevator car 50 undetected, cloudshipsrule writes

Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule View Post
Easy. It was already a fireball (No fuel smell), and the speed precluded early detection. Was it really too hard to figure that out by yourself?
i can agree that a fireball does not smell of jet fuel but can you agree that a fireball would singe your nostril hair. Only joking lets move on.

I feel its important to read some testimony of people who were inside elevators when a fireball passed them in order to develop a picture.

1. Harry Waiser to the 911 commission: "The elevator was ascending when, suddenly, I felt it rocked by an explosion, and then felt it plummeting. Orange, streaming sparks were apparent through the gaps in the doors at the sides of the elevator as the elevator scraped the walls of the shaft. The elevator burst into flame. I began to beat at the flames, burning my hands, arms and legs in the process. The flames went out, but I was hit in the face and neck by a separate fireball that came through the gap in the side of the elevator doors. The elevator came to a stop on the 78th floor, the doors opened, and I jumped out"

2. Carmen Griffith to larry king: “I couldn't even take off because there was a loud noise. And we all bent down and put our hands over our heads and we started screaming because stuff was coming down on top of the elevator. And the next thing we heard was an explosion and the side panel of the elevator opened up like a "V" and fire just came inside of the elevator; it was burning all of us...Before I got out (of the elevator)...when I looked back, a big draft of fire hit me in my face. I had closed my eyes real tight because I saw it right in front of me. And I got out of the elevator and laid on the floor and patted my hands. And I took my jacket off and I put off the fire on my hands and my face

3. now lets look at Arturo Griffths testimony to larry king: “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, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening. When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...6/lklw.00.html

Now for the srewed reader one will notice a significant difference between these three accounts. The first two mention a fireball and what one would normally expect if a fireball passed one’s elevator. The final account does not it mentions 3 explosions with no mention of fire, flames, heat, or burning. the problem is for 911 deniers is that the elevator shaft arturo was in, according to NIST, was the ONLY conduit available for the fireball to reach the subbasement levels.

So cloudship how come arturo did not detect this fireball? You claim that because the fireball was travelling so fast that it precluded detection. Woooooooosssssssssshhhhhhh, i can just see it now in my minds eye. But hang on, wouldnt the fireball that past arturo’s car be just as fast, if not slower, than the fireball that past the elevator cars of waiser and his wife carmen??? How come it was too fast for arturo but not for the others to detect?? it makes no sense.

Let us move on to another post by my friend cloudshiprules, he states
Originally Posted by cloudshipsrule View Post
Why is it so hard to believe a fireball could do what it damn well pleased in a chaotic event such as 9/11? You understand the forces involved, right?
Well first of all it must be said that the fireball is not a sentient being, it cannot be pleased or disappointed, unless your talking about a magic fireball...oh thats right you are, so sorry my mistake.

In any case, why did you forget to mention the “force” of the magic fireball in your earlier post? I agree that whatever can inflict damage to multiple levels in the sub basement must be powerful. But how could something so powerful and fast with tremendous overpressure pass arturo’s car without destroying it? It makes no sense.

When we look at arturo’s comments to larry king we learn that an explosion did have the force to push the doors inwards and broke his leg in the process and the following explosion knocked him out – there is no mention of fire, flames, intense heat, nada and nothing in his testimony that supports the magic fireball theory. can you tell me why you find the magic fireball theory convincing?

just anicdotal, but the elevator doors on the 22nd floor were also blown inwards which suggests that what ever inflicted this damage was not emitted from the elevator shafts but from outside the elevator shafts. moreover there was a mechanical room located on b2-3 level and on the 22nd floor. mechanical rooms contain water standpipes and electrical generators.

So as you can see cloudshiprule it is not so “easy” to explain away the impossible. what is really hard for me to figure out is how you can rationally justify your belief that the magic fireball theory is true?

I am not expecting a reply to this post so take care buddy.

Last edited by thewholesoul; 8th May 2008 at 09:00 PM.
thewholesoul 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
Old 8th May 2008, 10:01 PM   #211
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
There is absolutely nothing factually incorrect about my above statement. Let me repeat myself “arturo griffith or marlene cruz report no sparks, no heat, no flames, in fact there is no mention or even the slighest allusion that a fireball had passed their car”
Sure there is. Let's take a look at the statement its entirety (bolding mine):

Quote:
arturo griffith or marlene cruz report no sparks, no heat, no flames, in fact there is no mention or even the slighest allusion that a fireball had past their car. kinda strange dont you think? and lets not forget, this fireball had the strength to blown down the shaft door at b2-3, the PATH, turn carparks into rubble etc yet it magically did no harm to car 50, the shaft, or its occupants. there wasnt even a smell of jet fuel detected by griffith or cruz either!!!
Taken as a whole your statement strongly implies that no fireball whatsoever came down that elevator shaft, which of course is untrue. The bolded portion in particular flat out claims that both the elevator and the shaft were undamaged. Again, not true



Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You then claim that

1.you support this claim using testimony from arturo griffth. Firstly “the whole car shook” does not indicate the presence of a fireball. many people in many parts of the building experienced shaking upon the impact of the plane that doesnt mean there was a fireball present . Henry waiser also experienced being “rocked” from the plane impact but the flames he experienced later were a distinct and separate incident from being “rocked”. Secondly “i felt the explosion” does not indicate the presence of a fireball because if a fireball actually is “felt” it tends to be extremely warm, bright and dangerous. Please re-read henry waiser’s testimony in post #187 which i specifically provided to contrast the experience of when a fireball engulfs your elevator car (waiser) and when it does not (griffith and cruz).
I'll readily concede that "shaking" doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of a fireball. But I think this bit of testimony perhaps more strongly indicates such a phenomenon:

Quote:
Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
2.next let us analysis your claim a little further: “Griffith and Cruz certainly did experience the indications of a fireball's presence”. You should be a politician my friend with that slippery language. As explained being shaken or rocked does not necessarily indicate the presence of a fireball. Moreover i specifically stated that they did not experience a fireball PASSING their elevator car which had to have occured since their elevator shaft was the ONLY route the magic fireball could have taken which had access to the basement levels. furthermore the massive explosion in basement levels occured BEFORE their elevator car arrived at b1 level. the fireball sometime afterwards that nearly killed them as they were pulled from the elevator car was NOT the magic fireball because the damage was ALREADY DONE to the basement levels BEFORE that particular fireball arrived.
Oh, I see. You were talking about a second fireball. So when you made the assertions that Cruz and Griffith did not experience a fireball, you didn't mean the fireball they actually did experience, you meant the other fireball.

Could you please provide a source for this claim of a second (or I guess it would technically be the first) fireball?
johnny karate 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
Old 8th May 2008, 10:52 PM   #212
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,430
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Otherwise, you're [thewholesoul] making some important points.

Really? Where?

Please be specific.
LashL 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
Old 12th May 2008, 08:41 AM   #213
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
another debunker schooled

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Oh, I see. You were talking about a second fireball. So when you made the assertions that Cruz and Griffith did not experience a fireball, you didn't mean the fireball they actually did experience, you meant the other fireball.

precisely

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Could you please provide a source for this claim of a second (or I guess it would technically be the first) fireball?
certainly

1. From NIST NCSTAR 1 Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers 2.4 “some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement.”

2.The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft (Basement level of WTC 1). (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)

3.9/11 Commission Report, P. 285 “A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground.”

4.from popular mechanics: “a three year study into the collapse of the towers found that airplance debris sliced through utility shafts in both towers’ cores, creating conduits for burning jet fuel and fiery destruction throughout the buildings”

5.from norseman: “The burning jet fuel cascading/raining down the elevator shafts of car number 6,7 and 50 would consume all available oxygen in the shaft on its way down. Behind the burning front of the fireball, in the shafts, there would follow a cloud of expanding hot gasses including evaporated jet fuel”

trouble is - there is no testimony supporting the first fireball, aka the magic fireball, causing the subbasement damage. only claims i debunked in my previous post that you clearly wish to avoid answering.

so tell me...how did the magic fireball damage muliple floors in sub basment level without being detected or destroying car 50 and its occupants?

peace
thewholesoul 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
Old 12th May 2008, 10:05 AM   #214
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,258
The wholesoul only sees what he wants to see.

Quote:
3. now lets look at Arturo Griffths testimony to larry king: “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, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening. When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...6/lklw.00.html
(1) The man isn't sure how he broke his leg.

(2) He thinks he was unconscious.

Why again does it surprise you that he did not mention a fireball or fuel smells?

Two or three PSI of over pressure is more than enough to blow in elevator doors but nowhere near enough to damage structural frame work.

There is no evidence of high explosive damage in the basement area of the towers.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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
Old 12th May 2008, 03:48 PM   #215
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
so tell me...how did the magic fireball damage muliple floors in sub basment level without being detected or destroying car 50 and its occupants?
This is what Marlene Cruz, who was in the elevator with Arturo Griffith, said in an interview with NBC on September 13th 2001 from the hospital:
Quote:
...all of a sudden I heard that explosion and the doors blew and the elevator dropped and there was smoke and fire, water, oil all over the place, debris, concrete, you name it just fell on top of us...
I am quiet certain that she is just lumping together everything that happened inside that elevator in no particular order, as the things pops up in her mind. So I would be very careful with how I would interpret the things she says in relation to the sequence of events.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

The interview with Marlene Cruz starts at 3:25 into the video.

What we can be sure about is that the cables to their elevator car was cut by Flight 11 when it crashed into the building. That was when their car started to drop. The car was stopped by the emergency brakes down in the basement. As the elevator came to a halt all the debris that had entered their elevator shaft up in the impact zone would catch up with them. Pieces of debris falling more than 300 meters from the impact zone would hit their elevator car with a tremendous force, that easily explains the all the explosions and the damage to the elevator car mentioned by Arturo Griffith. The debris would use less than 10 seconds from the impact zone. While the fuel would use considerably more time, for reasons I explained in my opening post in this thread.

As mentioned by an earlier poster, Arturo Griffith claims that he and Marelene Cruz was rescued out of the elevator before the fireball came down the shaft.

Another factor is the fact that the 50 elevator had doors on every floor, while 6 and 7 ran for very, very long stretches without any stops. In other words, without doors that could be blown out by over-pressure in the shafts causing fuel to escape and burn off before it reached the ground and basement levels.

I strongly suspect that the main source for the fireball in the WTC 1 lobby and on B-4, came from shafts 6 and 7. The pressure in the narrow elevator lobby on the ground floor must have been pretty high, easily blowing in the elevator doors in the other elevator banks and then forcing smoke and fire in to the other shafts. Even into the 50 shaft that was directly opposite the 6 and 7 shafts. This explains why some witnesses that where trapped in elevators in the lobby area reported fires and smoke in the elevator pits below them.

So it is a possibility that the fuel that entered the 50 shaft mostly burned up further up in the tower. So the fireball that finally reached the 50 car could have been quiet weak, or even that it was just remnants of the fireball from the 6 and 7 shafts up in the lobby.
Norseman 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
Old 12th May 2008, 05:28 PM   #216
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
1. From NIST NCSTAR 1 Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers 2.4 “some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement.”

2.The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft (Basement level of WTC 1). (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)

3.9/11 Commission Report, P. 285 “A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground.”

4.from popular mechanics: “a three year study into the collapse of the towers found that airplance debris sliced through utility shafts in both towers’ cores, creating conduits for burning jet fuel and fiery destruction throughout the buildings”

5.from norseman: “The burning jet fuel cascading/raining down the elevator shafts of car number 6,7 and 50 would consume all available oxygen in the shaft on its way down. Behind the burning front of the fireball, in the shafts, there would follow a cloud of expanding hot gasses including evaporated jet fuel”

trouble is - there is no testimony supporting the first fireball, aka the magic fireball, causing the subbasement damage. only claims i debunked in my previous post that you clearly wish to avoid answering.

so tell me...how did the magic fireball damage muliple floors in sub basment level without being detected or destroying car 50 and its occupants
Please note the bolding I have added to the above quotes.

Here's the debate so far:

You: Griffith and Cruz did not experience a fireball in elevator shaft 50A.

Me: Actually, yes they did. Here's proof.

You: What I meant was, they didn't experience the first fireball. The one they experienced was the second fireball.

Me: Oh, I see. So now there were two fireballs? Please provide evidence.

You: Here's a bunch of quotes describing the fireball as a singular event. Hopefully no one will notice that I completely failed to back up my previous assertion.

Me: Yeah, actually I noticed. Sorry.

It's already been established that a fireball came down the shaft. We don't need further proof of that. What you're claiming is that two separate fireballs came down the shaft. You'll need to provide evidence that the fireball being described in the above quotes was a different event from the one being described by Cruz and Griffith.
johnny karate 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
Old 12th May 2008, 06:36 PM   #217
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
another debunker schooled

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The man isn't sure how he broke his leg.
The point is not how he broke his leg the point is that he did break his leg as opposed to being crushed alive in his elevator by the overpressure from the magic fireball. The point is that he broke his leg as opposed to recieving severe burn injuries like his wife, Harry Waizer, the person mentioned in Kenneth Johannemann’s testimony “the elevator door flew open and a guy stumbled out, and he was badly burned”, the group of persons mentioned in firefighter Peter Blaich’s testimony “we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides...They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene.”

Are you starting to get the picture?

(i)The little overpressure which blew up griffiths elevator door and threw him against the panal does not match up to the overpressure required to turn a machine shop and parking garage into rubble, to cause a cave-in in the PATH system, to wrinkle up a steel and concrete door.

(ii)Unlike firefighter Blaich’s testimony no smell of kerosene was detected by either Griffith or Cruz eventhough a person can detect as low as 1ppm of kerosene in the air.

(iii)The small fact that their elevator door was blown inwards suggests the force originated from outside the elevator shaft

(iv)The small fact that in Griffith’s testimony TWO explosions are mentioned with not ONE fireball mentioned until sometime afterwards when he is finally rescued.


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
He thinks he was unconscious.
So what. Sometimes i think debunkers are unconscious…whats your point? Marlene Cruz was also in the elevator and she reported no fireball and damage to the elevator car is an objective affair.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why again does it surprise you that he did not mention a fireball or fuel smells?
I guess its an argument from incredulity!!!!!!! Lol.

Look if i have to restate my argument everytime i school a debunker it would fast become a very tedious process for me. Please re-read my posts, hardlines, and swing dangler. This website is the best i have read on the issue http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=18745

Preferably if you could just ouline your REASONS why you think it is unsurprising that they didnt mention a fireball, smell jet fuel or not be crushed by the overpressure that would be great. You know...if you actually defended your ridiculous theory.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Two or three PSI of over pressure is more than enough to blow in elevator doors but nowhere near enough to damage structural frame work.
But the magic fireball is supposedly responsible for destroying the structural framework within the sub basment levels. Ed McCabe was in the refrigeration plant in b4. To burst the door off its hinges where he was situated, the blast had to destroy at least three walls. In order to cause a cave-in for the PATH system on b5 level, the blast had to travel through the path of most resistance, 200ft past the elevator pit and again through many walls.

Again, according to the official story the magic fireball that caused sub-basement damage emitted from the freight elevator shaft but a blast that can turn walls into rubble would surely have killed the occupants of car 50.

EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION DESTRUCTIVE PEAK PRESSURE
GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE: 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE: 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE: 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99 FATALITIES: 99 PSI

To break down three walls the blast would have to be greater that 2-3 PSI. Is that not evidence of explosives?

Next are some testimonies suggesting blasts with a 35 PSI or greater...

1. Firefighter John Morabito “Just inside the front entrance, Morabito found two victims of the fireball. A man, already dead, was pushed against a wall, his clothes gone, his eyeglasses blackened, his tongue lying on the floor next to him.

2. “There was one body inside the lobby. I don't know where he came from, how he died. Looked like his clothes were a little burnt up on him, but his legs were chopped off."

3. Firefighter William Green: I was telling guys afterwards the floor must have blown up. Maybe there was a bomb downstairs or something. But I came to learn that that was bodies. We had to climb over and around this pile.

Q. A pile of bodies, in the lobby?
A. I didn’t recognize it as bodies. I don’t know if my mind didn’t see it.
Q. Burned?
A. Burned.
Q. Near the elevators?
A. It looked like rubble to me.

4. Bill Pekrol : Bill climbed down all 72 floors but when he arrived in the lobby of the Tower, 20 elevators exploded from the plane’s jet fuel... the noise was horrendous and the tower was beginning to collapse. Bill sustained fuel burns on the dorsal sides of both hands and suffered three skull fractures, a crushed knee, a broken jaw, burned corneas, and a lacerated abdomen that required 200 stitches to close. His injuries were sustained from steel beams that were blowing apart.

20 elevators exploded? - was there still enough jet fuel? - and how did the jet fuel transfer into those local shafts?

in any case the above injuries are not consistent with a deflagration with a 2 - 5 PSI. Threshold for fatality is 35 PSI and steel beams do not blow apart from 2 – 5 PSI blasts.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
There is no evidence of high explosive damage in the basement area of the towers.
Unless you are saying that explosives cannot turn machine shops and parking garages into rubble? Cannot cause cave-ins? Cannot wrinkle up steel concrete fire doors? Cannot blow up steal beams? Cannot kill people? Cannot produce thick white smoke? Cannot sound like an explosion? then i guess there is no evidence. But if you admit that explosives can do that, then you have all the evidence you need. Bottom line is deflagration cant explain ALL the evidence thus a new explanation is required.

The truth is there is ample evidence for explosives in the basement and fireballs

DGM it is you, not I, who only sees what he wants to see.

peace
thewholesoul 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
Old 12th May 2008, 07:32 PM   #218
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
the johney karate fireball

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Here's the debate so far:

You: Griffith and Cruz did not experience a fireball in elevator shaft 50A.

Me: Actually, yes they did. Here's proof.

You: What I meant was, they didn't experience the first fireball. The one they experienced was the second fireball.

Me: Oh, I see. So now there were two fireballs? Please provide evidence.

You: Here's a bunch of quotes describing the fireball as a singular event. Hopefully no one will notice that I completely failed to back up my previous assertion.

Me: Yeah, actually I noticed. Sorry.

It's already been established that a fireball came down the shaft. We don't need further proof of that. What you're claiming is that two separate fireballs came down the shaft. You'll need to provide evidence that the fireball being described in the above quotes was a different event from the one being described by Cruz and Griffith.
i am sorry to say it amigo but you really are poor at debate.

you obviously have failed to understand my relatively simple position - heres a tip - the MAGIC fireball.

you try to pin me down on a fact that i already agree with i.e. that a fireball did travel down the elevator shaft of car 50. i will even call this fireball after you out of respect.

but worst of all you think that this fireball somehow refutes my position and proves the offiicial story true!!!! are you even reading my posts?

listen, this is very simple. you know those people in elevator car 50 well they said they heard several explosions and that these happened BEFORE the "johney karate fireball" travelled down the shaft. the fact that these explosions occured BEFORE the "johney karate fireball" descended is EVIDENCE that these events were not caused by the "johney karate fireball" but..heres the kicker...BY SOMETHING ELSE.

but according to the official story, you know that thing your supposed to be defending, those explosions BEFORE the "johney karate fireball" were also caused by a fireball. i call this fireball a MAGIC fireball because it did not kill the occupants with overpressure yet it was responsible for turning walls into rubble etc, because they did not smell kerosene which is what one would expect, because they were not burnt like other people in other elevator cars who did actually experience a fireball, because they never see or mention a fireball which is what one would expect.

so your job is to explain how this MAGIC fireball is possible in the context of arturos testimony, damage to the sub basement, and the official story.

heres the debate so far

me: explain shaft to shaft transfer of jet fuel and the magic fireball

you: uh? what? there was a fireball

me: explain shaft to shaft transfer of jet fuel and the magic fireball

you: uh? there is no evidence of the first fireball...err second fireball

me: explain shaft to shaft transfer of jet fuel and the magic fireball

you: uh? there was only one johney karate fireball you stupid twoofer!!!!

the fact is there is no debate when you keep on avoiding it. and if there is a debate i am winning!!!
thewholesoul 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
Old 12th May 2008, 08:32 PM   #219
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
2. in 1993 there was a truck bomb intended to destroy or weaken the core columns in the basement levels despite the 3 inch plate steel and it didnt kill everyone in all the basement levels. your point is mute. Besides their are a variety of reasons and motivations behind the use of secondary devices aside from weakening the core structure. furthermore the official story argues that a fire allegedly waekened the core columns themselves not just the plate steel yet there is photos of people standing in the imapct zone waving for help!!!

This is a grossly dishonest statement. There is a photo of one person standing in the impact zone, and they were at the perimeter of the building where no fires were visible, and not at the core. Specifically NIST concluded that the impact pushed fuel loads in the buildings against the far wall, as observed by the location of fires in the buildings. This a person standing in the impact hole would be on the opposite side of the building from the most intense fires, not to mention in the place with the cleanest smoke-free air.

We also cannot possibly know what condition that person was in. Were they screaming in pain from the heat at their back? Or were they standing relaxed, cool, and comfortable in the hole.

The mere fact that they would perch at the damaged and unsteady edge of a thousand+ foot drop suggests to me that the interior of the building offered absolutely no refuge.



Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
2. According to mackeys calculations 280kg of jet fuel was enough to damage multiple floors in the basement, yet as hardlines mentions in his post #109 1000 to 3000 kg of jet fuel deflagrated on impact. However nobody died on the on the 91st floor just below the imapct zone, there was no report of cave-ins and the alumium cladding was not even knocked off the perimeter columns at the impact zone. How is this possible? It makes no sense at all comparing damage to the impact zone and damage to the basement when we consider the estimated amount of jet fuel involved in both cases.
More dishonesty in the above comments. Videos and photographs clearly show that fireproofing and aluminium cladding was removed from exterior columns in the impact zone.

Steve McIntyre, an engineer for the American Bureau of Shipping on the 91st floor, reported that the elevators on the 91st floor had been destroyed by explosions, had started fires on the 91st floor, and that the impact had rendered stairwells B and C impassable. And let's bear in mind this is three floors below the lowest impact point.

In addition when comparing the damage inflicted by exploding jet fuel in the impact floors compared with the basement it is important to consider the environment in each case. Detonations always cause much greater damaged in a contained space than in an open space. In the case of the impact zones the fireball and impact breached the windows and columns of the floors, thus allowing the fireball to vent outside the structure. In addition the explosion on the impact floors was spread across multiple floors simultaneously as the jet fuel did not all dispense on one floor. In contrast the basement explosion was an enclosed single floor space where the shock wave from the explosion would have reflected back inside the building thus causing significantly more damage. This is precisely the principle behind thermobaric weapons, which can cause extensive damage even deep inside complex underground cave systems.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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
Old 12th May 2008, 08:52 PM   #220
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
thewholesoul, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing up this "shaft to shaft transfer of jet fuel" and pretending it ever existed as part of our discussion. We both know it didn't. So let's stick to the issue.

You claimed no fireball travelled down elevator shaft 50A. I provided you witness testimony that directly refuted that assertion. You then claimed that two fireballs didn't travel down elevator shaft 50A, conceding that at least one did, and implying that the official version of events maintains there must be a second:
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
furthermore the massive explosion in basement levels occured BEFORE their elevator car arrived at b1 level. the fireball sometime afterwards that nearly killed them as they were pulled from the elevator car was NOT the magic fireball because the damage was ALREADY DONE to the basement levels BEFORE that particular fireball arrived.
I asked you twice for evidence to support this claim. So far you have only provided me with quotes that describe the fireball as a singular event, thus undermining your assertion, and now you have this to say:
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
listen, this is very simple. you know those people in elevator car 50 well they said they heard several explosions and that these happened BEFORE the "johney karate fireball" travelled down the shaft. the fact that these explosions occured BEFORE the "johney karate fireball" descended is EVIDENCE that these events were not caused by the "johney karate fireball" but..heres the kicker...BY SOMETHING ELSE.
Still no evidence. Just another restating of your assertion.

So for the third time: What evidence do you have that a phenomenon you are labeling "the magic fireball" struck the basement levels before the actual fireball did?
johnny karate 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
Old 12th May 2008, 09:06 PM   #221
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
It's worth pointing out:

1. The official account does not require a fireball to begin at the impact floors and descend to the basement - it only requires jet fuel to descend to the basement, and once there aerosol and ignite. The aerosol of jet fuel can occur at any time, and at multiple times, in multiple locations. This is in contrast to a single fireball.

2. A fuel air explosion as would occur in the scenario above is capable of producing far more damaging over pressure than high explosives. Although high explosives have a higher originating overpressure, this dissipates rapidly thus localising the effects of the blast both in time and space. In contrast a fuel air explosion can produce overpressure that sustains high pressure levels for a much longer period, causing more extensive damage at a greater distance from the origin of the explosion. In addition, a fuel air explosion will produce much more significant heat damage than a high explosive detonation.

3. High explosives are entirely incapable of producing the sort of wounds described by multiple people as being inflicted on Felipe David when engulfed in an explosion that came from the main service elevator shaft. The wounds described - skin hanging off - are specifically consistent with a hydrocarbon fuel explosion. The same wounds were witnessed on victims at the Pentagon and in other parts of the WTC.

In simple terms, had Felipe David experienced a high explosive detonation he would have been ripped apart. His injuries are a result of heat damage and not detonation damage.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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
Old 13th May 2008, 07:17 PM   #222
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
So for the third time: What evidence do you have that a phenomenon you are labeling "the magic fireball" struck the basement levels before the actual fireball did?
you still dont even understand my simple simple argument.

rodriguez, morelli, sanchez, david, cruz, griffith, etc etc etc etc report a frecking EXPLOSION in the basement. there is your frecking EVIDENCE.

now we have to EXPLAIN that EXPLOSION

we have two options

(a) the official theory claims that the explosion was a fireball
(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.

come on man this is basic stuff...i shouldnt have to be explaining myself over and over again.
thewholesoul 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
Old 14th May 2008, 12:40 AM   #223
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
 
Drs_Res's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,100
Seems to me that the "explosions" in the basement would have been the shock wave from the plane impact traveling through the structure and to the foundation of the building.

You would hear the impact from above later. The fireball would also occur later as well.

The shock from the impact could definitely do damage once it hit the footings in the bedrock.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Drs_Res 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
Old 14th May 2008, 02:58 AM   #224
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
you still dont even understand my simple simple argument.

rodriguez, morelli, sanchez, david, cruz, griffith, etc etc etc etc report a frecking EXPLOSION in the basement. there is your frecking EVIDENCE.

now we have to EXPLAIN that EXPLOSION

we have two options

(a) the official theory claims that the explosion was a fireball
(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.

come on man this is basic stuff...i shouldnt have to be explaining myself over and over again.


This is incorrect. Felipe David was burned by a fireball originating from an elevator shaft in the basement at the time that those in the office with Rodriguez reportedly heard an explosion. In fact their evidence that an explosion had occured was the sight of David appearing at the office with skin hanging off his arms, shouting about an explosion.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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
Old 14th May 2008, 09:35 AM   #225
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
when talking about fireballs in elevator shafts, pls also mention the elevatorshaft number so we can see if it was possible. cause most elevator shafts did not run from sublevels or basement till top or impact area.

Last edited by DC; 14th May 2008 at 09:36 AM.
DC 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
Old 14th May 2008, 02:32 PM   #226
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
you still dont even understand my simple simple argument.

rodriguez, morelli, sanchez, david, cruz, griffith, etc etc etc etc report a frecking EXPLOSION in the basement. there is your frecking EVIDENCE.

now we have to EXPLAIN that EXPLOSION

we have two options

(a) the official theory claims that the explosion was a fireball
(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.

come on man this is basic stuff...i shouldnt have to be explaining myself over and over again.
Yes, I understand what you are claiming.

What I'm asking you for is evidence. And this makes the fourth time I've had to do it.

Please cite your claims.
johnny karate 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
Old 19th May 2008, 04:39 AM   #227
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
EVIDENCE for the karate kid

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yes, I understand what you are claiming.

What I'm asking you for is evidence. And this makes the fourth time I've had to do it.

Please cite your claims.
oh i see it, DOZENS of testimony doesnt count as EVIDENCE in your book when it contradicts you religious convictions!

im am only posting this once and am not entering a debate because i wish to stick on the theme of THIS thread but the following is EVIDENCE that explosives were used to bring down wtc 1 2 and 7

1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse


2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up

3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero


4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust

5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample

6) the infamous "meteorite"

7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this

8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires

despite all this HARD evidence NIST denies the existence of molten steel - yet another smoking gun of 911

peace
thewholesoul 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
Old 19th May 2008, 04:55 AM   #228
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,258
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
oh i see it, DOZENS of testimony doesnt count as EVIDENCE in your book when it contradicts you religious convictions!

im am only posting this once and am not entering a debate because i wish to stick on the theme of THIS thread but the following is EVIDENCE that explosives were used to bring down wtc 1 2 and 7

1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse


2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up

3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero


4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust

5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample

6) the infamous "meteorite"

7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this

8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires

despite all this HARD evidence NIST denies the existence of molten steel - yet another smoking gun of 911

peace
Please show a demolition that exhibited these traits. Explain how your "theory" could produce these results.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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
Old 19th May 2008, 05:11 AM   #229
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,849
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
im am only posting this once and am not entering a debate because i wish to stick on the theme of THIS thread but the following is EVIDENCE that explosives were used to bring down wtc 1 2 and 7
Note to any moderator who may be reading: Is this far enough off topic to warrant a thread split? If so, that may be a good idea at this point.

The problem with your evidence for explosives is this: in order for something to be evidence for explosives, it needs at least to be consistent with the use of explosives. Let's look at your eight points in turn.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse
Neither can this be explained by explosives, which release energy over a small fraction of a second; nor can it be explained by therm*te, which releases energy over seconds to minutes. The only possible explanation for these high temperatures weeks after the collapse is a thermal energy source that releases energy over a timescale of many weeks, and the only candidate with these properties so far suggested is an underground fire fuelled by the building contents. Therefore, this is not evidence either for explosives or therm*te.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up
Same argument as above. High temperatures weeks after the event can't be from explosives or thermite. Again, not evidence for explosives.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero
Same again. Also, "dozens" is a gross exaggeration; there are, as far as I know, two accounts, one of which is journalistic hyperbole and the other of which is a statement attributed by Christopher Bollyn to Mark Louiseaux, who denies having made it.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust
Thermate, as everyone has pointed out ad nauseam, is not an explosive. All the chemicals found in the dust are expected components of the dust from the collapse of a large building. Other chemicals characteristic of thermate, for example barium, were not found.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample
Still being debated; so far several other possible origins have been identified. In particular it appears to resemble fly ash. This is closer to being worth considering as a piece of evidence than anything else the truth movement has produced; however, as one piece of evidence standing alone it is a long way from even arousing suspicion.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
6) the infamous "meteorite"
You'll have to explain why a large piece of debris made up primarily of concrete from three or four floor slabs having been compressed together is evidence of explosives or incendiaries. Be sure to explain the survival of pieces of paper on its surface in the context of temperatures in excess of 1000ºC.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this
Metallurgical examination of this intergranular melting has long since established that it is, in fact, intergranular melting, due to long term exposure of steel to a high temperature, corrosive atmosphere. Again, the long timescale of the exposure rules out explosives or thermate as a cause.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires
This is the same phenomenon as 7).

Your eight pieces of evidence therefore comprise five that rule out explosives or therm*te as their cause, one based on sketchy anecdotal evidence that in any case rules out explosives or therm*te as a cause, and two that can be trivially explained by other causes. Overall, there is really nothing warranting any further consideration.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   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
Old 19th May 2008, 05:35 AM   #230
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
(b) the twoofers claims it was explosives

for the LAST time...i was perfectly aware that a fireball travelled down the freight shaft but this fireball was seen long AFTER the explosions were experienced in the BASEMENT. we know that by reading the testimony of griffith and cruz. it is my argument that the explosives in the basement were NOT caused by the fireball.
You do realize that the buildings collapsed from the TOP down, right? What friggin' purpose did these planted, basement explosives serve but to create fodder for conspiratoids?

Why not give up this hobby for something more useful, like building ships in a bottle or simply drinking beer on your mom's couch in front of the boob tube?

Last edited by cloudshipsrule; 19th May 2008 at 05:35 AM.
cloudshipsrule 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
Old 19th May 2008, 07:15 AM   #231
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yes, I understand what you are claiming.

What I'm asking you for is evidence. And this makes the fourth time I've had to do it.

Please cite your claims.
hey karate kid,

i thought of a better way for you to understand why you are acting absurd.

what EVIDENCE dio you have that a fireball past down shaft 50?
you wll say the testimony from arturo griffth

then i say with those very same eyeballs he saw thick smoke and his elevator car door damaged, he heard an explosion all BEFORE he saw that fireball...

can you not see how ridiculous you sound "for the fouth time" as if i am trying to duck a question.

give me a break
thewholesoul 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
Old 19th May 2008, 08:51 AM   #232
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
1) NASA thermal images show surface temperatures many weeks after the collapse that indicate temperature below the surface are extremely hot and cannot be explained by a gravity collapse


2) multiple photos of red hot orange metal from ground zero clean up

3) dozens of testimony claiming to see molten steel at ground zero


4) chemical traces of thermate i.e. iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese found in samples of wtc dust

5) iron microspherules found in samples of wtc dust sample

6) the infamous "meteorite"

7) FEMA’s metallurigical examination found “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese” - jet fuel fires cannot explain this

8) New York Times, November 29. 2001 , “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 wtc; steel members have been partly EVAPOURATED”. evapouration of steel cannot be explained by jet fuel fires

despite all this HARD evidence NIST denies the existence of molten steel - yet another smoking gun of 911
Thankfully you're not a judge, as this is circumstantial evidence, not conclusively hard.
My 'passenger-jet-flying-into-said-buildings' evidence trumps all of your evidence, which has already, repeatedly been shot down.
cloudshipsrule 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
Old 19th May 2008, 02:38 PM   #233
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
oh i see it, DOZENS of testimony doesnt count as EVIDENCE in your book when it contradicts you religious convictions!
I never said that. What I've asked multiple times is for you to actually provide evidence to support your claims. You keep referring to this testimony as evidence. Now all you have to do is provide it.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
what EVIDENCE dio you have that a fireball past down shaft 50? you wll say the testimony from arturo griffth
And I both directly quoted and linked the testimony to which I referred. You seem unwilling to do this in support of your own argument.

If testimony exists to support your "magic fireball" theory, please provide quotes and links to said testimony.
johnny karate 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
Old 21st May 2008, 04:13 PM   #234
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
to Norseman

the following is a quote from Marlene Cruz:

...all of a sudden I heard that explosion and the doors blew and the elevator dropped and there was smoke and fire, water, oil all over the place, debris, concrete, you name it just fell on top of us...

the following is from Norseman

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
I am quiet certain that she is just lumping together everything that happened inside that elevator in no particular order, as the things pops up in her mind. So I would be very careful with how I would interpret the things she says in relation to the sequence of events.

What we can be sure about is that the cables to their elevator car was cut by Flight 11 when it crashed into the building. That was when their car started to drop. The car was stopped by the emergency brakes down in the basement. As the elevator came to a halt all the debris that had entered their elevator shaft up in the impact zone would catch up with them. Pieces of debris falling more than 300 meters from the impact zone would hit their elevator car with a tremendous force that easily explains ALL the explosions and the damage to the elevator car mentioned by Arturo Griffith. The debris would use less than 10 seconds from the impact zone. While the fuel would use considerably more time, for reasons I explained in my opening post in this thread.
1.Why are you “quiet certain”? What are your reasons in support of this baseless assumption?

2.The actual reason you want to ignore the sequence of events is solely to establish your predetermined goal. Not very objective.

3.The sequence of events in Cruz’s testimony is roughly as follows: explosion – car fell – smoke – debris – (we know from Griffths testimony that seconds after they pulled her from the car a fireball was seen descending the shaft). The sequence of events in Griffith’s testimony is as follows: explosion – car fell – debris – smoke – fireball.

4.In both cases they witness smoke BEFORE the fireball arrived. Smoke cannot travel down an elevator shaft quicker than jet fuel or a fireball? You’ve just been debunked. Unless that is they were BOTH mistaken in their sequence of events. if you choose to travel down this path I will use the testimony from Felipe David and Philip Morelli to further support my argument.

5.Dispite the fact that both Griffith and Cruz make a clear distinction between “explosions” and falling “debris”, it is your contention that the falling debris “easily explains ALL the explosions and damage to the elevator car”

6.Really? Falling debris explains the thick white smoke Griffith describes BEFORE the fireball arrived? Quote: “The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him.” http://web.archive.org/web/200211012...eiu/details/54

Since when can falling concrete produce thick white smoke? Falling concrete will not turn into dust from hitting off an elevator shaft wall or impacting the roof of an elevator car. So if the fireball or the debris didnt cause the smoke then reason demands we seek a new explanation!!

7.As for damage to the elevator door. Cruz says it was blown upwards, and Griffith says it was blown inwards. Either way debris falling from above could not explain this damage. I think we can safely rule out falling debris causing the door to be blown upwards according to Cruz’s account. As for Griffith’s account, debris would need to be small enough to pass down the gap between the elevator door and shaft walls, then it must take a horizontal turn to impact the elevator door both defying common sense and gravity.

8.So no Norseman, the falling debris does not “easily” describe the impossible.
thewholesoul 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
Old 21st May 2008, 04:34 PM   #235
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Norseman You Need A New Explanation

NORSEMAN

Q: How did the magic fireball damage multiple floors in sub basement level without being detected or destroying car 50 and its occupants?

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
A: The main source of the fireball in WTC 1 lobby and on B-4, came from shafts 6 and 7
I was pleased to read your post Norseman as you have clearly abondoned the official theory in respect to a magic fireball descending the freight elevator shaft. The magic fireball, according to your new modified position, has moved over to the express elevator shaft 6 and 7. Once I debunk this new modified position, and I will, reason demands that you seek an alternative explanation.

There are definite strengths to your modified theory:

Firstly, it avoids the problem of facing contradictory testimony since elevator car 6 and 7 were inoperable that day thus no passengers were inside these elevators. Nist state “elevator 6 and 7 were out of service for moderisation” (NCSTAR 1 – 8, p43).

Secondly, damage to the elevator doorways and elevator cars of 6 and 7 is documented in (a) testimony from Dave Bobbitt “the doors of elevator number 6 and 7 (in the lobby) had been blown out” and (b) from NIST NCSTAR 1-8 p43 “the doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft and the elevators cars were burnt.” Such references do seem to support the offical story.

Thirdly, I agree with your claim that the overpressure from a fireball would be greater in the express elevator shaft than in the freight elevator shaft. You provide two reasons in support of this claim (1) the express elevator shaft was more narrow and (2) the express elevator shaft had less doorways and because it had less doorways less fuel could escape if a doorway was blown out by overpressure.

So to be clear: you’re arguing that a fireball from the impact zone decended 90+ floors blowing out elevator doors down the express elevator shaft and eventually causing structural damage from the lobby to basement level 5.

A major problem for your new modified theory is revealed by the following quote:
(NIST NCSTAR 1-7, p32 PDF) “We have two elevators serving only particular floors, beginning from basement level 1, Car 6 and 7. Though their lowest elevator opening was in basement level 1, their shafts went as deep as basement level 4”. This means that, unlike the fireball descending the freight elevator shaft, the fireball descending the express elevator shaft had NO ACCESS to basement levels which it allegedly damages!

Consequently the fireball had to blast through the shaft walls and pit before it could enter and inflict damage to the basement levels. Now assuming the fireball will decrease in energy over time and distance from the impact zone and assuming that the fireball did in fact blast down the shaft walls and pit in the basement levels then we are expected to believe that a weaker fireball in the basment levels can blast through shaft walls whereas the stronger fireball previously descending the elevator shaft could not? It makes no sense.

It stands to reason, that if the fireball really did have enough strength to blast down shaft walls it would have done so long before it reached the basement. Now if you can accept that blasting down doorways allows jet fuel to escape then it follows that when blasting down shaft walls a similar loss would occur. Thus if a fireball actually did have the strenght to blast down shaft walls then a fireball would never actually reach the basement since naturally all the fuel would be expended in blasting down the shaft walls. However because we know a fireball did reach the basement (Griffith’s testimony) we know that fireballs cannot blast through shaft walls.

Next major problem. If you watch carefully all the below examples of deflagration, FAE’s, and backdrafts you should notice that they all share one thing in common and that is they ALL travel through the path of least resistance with no exception. So here is a list to watch:

1.http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=9
2.http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=9
3. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
4. POST#46 in the thread has a nice link
5. video of the plane impact into tower one and two
6. videos of any FAE in a movie

I challenge any debunker to produce just one video of a FAE, deflagration, or backdraft that travels through the path of most resistence. Until a single video, experiment or study is produced to that effect I will assume that the natural behaviour of ALL fireballs is to travel through the path of least resistence and anyone that claims otherwise is simply talking rubbish.

Now returning to our express elevator shaft 6 and 7. (a) the elevator shaft itself is the path of least resistence (b) The doorways are the path of more resistence, (c) the shaft walls were the path of even more resistence, and (d) the shaft pit was the path of most resistence. So in order to turn several basment walls into rubble it had to blast down the shaft walls at B 2. To cause a cave-in on the PATH platform the fireball had to travel through the path of most resistence, take a horizontal turn and then blast through three or so walls. When you can actually visualize this you can understand just how “magic” this fireball must have been: http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5...1284cutke7.jpg

But not only are we expected to believe that this fireball defies how ALL natural fireballs should behave we are expected to believe that it can cause ALL this structural damage (i.e. blasting through shaft walls, pits, turning walls into rubble etc) yet it only “burns” the elevtor cars 6 and 7 that were right in its path!! Wow the makes sense.

Next major problem is testimony, I mean if you are correct and the fireball that damaged the basment levels originated from the express elevator shaft then we would expect to hear testimony of people in the basement describing the moment when the fireball blast down the shaft walls to enter. Unfortunately for you, I was unable to locate any testimony that could support your theory and I seriously doubt that you can either. In B-4, for instance, all testimony (e.g. Samchez, Morelli, etc) points to a fireball coming down the freight elevator shaft and not the express elevator shaft. Frankly it is beyond belief that a fireball could blast through the shaft pit in B-4 yet manage not to blast down the shaft walls at B-4 where of course it would have been witnessed by several indiciuals.

Finally, beacuse the fireball was descending from the imapct zone and towards the basment levels one would expect that the doorway opening in the lobby would be the first to be blown out before the fireball reached the basment levels. However according to ALL testimony on the B-1 (rodriguez etc) level the first explosion is heard coming from BELOW.

So in conclusion: if we have eliminated the possibility of the basement damaged being caused by a fireball down the freight elevator shaft, and we can eliminate the possibility of the basment damage being caused by a fireball down the express elevator shaft then the official story has no explanation for the explosion that was heard from BELOW william rodriguez and others. because the official story can not provide a possible explanation it must be rejected.


so in summary if you care to offer a rejoinder

i argue that the fireball down the express elevator shaft as a cause of structural damage to multiple basement floors is (a) physically impossible and (b) inconsistent with all relevant testimony.

peace
thewholesoul 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
Old 21st May 2008, 04:49 PM   #236
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
1. The official account does not require a fireball to begin at the impact floors and descend to the basement - it only requires jet fuel to descend to the basement, and once there aerosol and ignite. The aerosol of jet fuel can occur at any time, and at multiple times, in multiple locations. This is in contrast to a single fireball.
1. 9/11 Commission Report, P. 285 “A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground.”

2.The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft (Basement level of WTC 1). (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)

3.From NIST NCSTAR 1 Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers 2.4 “some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement.”

4.from popular mechanics: “a three year study into the collapse of the towers found that airplance debris sliced through utility shafts in both towers’ cores, creating conduits for burning jet fuel and fiery destruction throughout the buildings”

5.from norseman: “The burning jet fuel cascading/raining down the elevator shafts of car number 6,7 and 50 would consume all available oxygen in the shaft on its way down. Behind the burning front of the fireball, in the shafts, there would follow a cloud of expanding hot gasses including evaporated jet fuel”

it seems absolutely clear to me that your drip drop dripple hypothesis IS NOT what NIST, the 911 commission, Popular Mechanics, or fellow debunkers are defending. all of the above cite a fireball or at the very least IGNITED and BURNING jet fuel.

you have ABANDONED the official story.

even if you have not the intellectual honesty to accept this fact i am sure many others reading will. in any case i will DEBUNK your drip drop dripple theory in an upcoming post.

peace
thewholesoul 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
Old 22nd May 2008, 02:10 PM   #237
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Gumboot debunked, pawned, owned, schooled etc

Below I will debunk Gumboot using testimony and a little common sense.

No 1 Testimony Felipe David was standing in front of the main freight shaft on sub level 1

“That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned.”

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb

Q: what caused the explosion?

A1 Offical Explanation: a fireball fell 90+ floors and burnt David

A2 Unoffical JREF Explanation: unignited jet fuel fell 90+ floors and exploded

No 2 Testimony Phillip Morelli was walking beside the main freight shaft on sub level 4

"As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. The impact of the explosion or whatever happened threw me to the floor. And that’s when everything started happenin'. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was, you just assumed something fell over in the loading dock. Something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened then all of a sudden you just felt the floor movin' and you get up... the walls, you know now I'm hearing that the main freight car, the elevators, you know what I mean fell down so I was right near the main freight car so I assumed what that was. Then you heard that [the main feight car] comin' towards ya.”

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb

Assuming that the above explosion experienced by Philip Morelli was the same explosion heard by Felipe David then this testimony is very useful since we discover that AFTER Morelli experienced the explosion he heard the freight elevator car falling. Because we know that Felipe David was standing on B-1 we know that the freight elevator car was ABOVE HIM when he got burned from intense heat.

We do not know exactly where the freight elevator was when Felipe David got burned however in an interview with Larry King the following details were given by Arturo Griffith

“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, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped.”

So elevator car 50 left B-2 and was ascending for approximately 7 seconds. We dont know exactly where it was when its occupants heard the first explosion but we can safely assume it was ABOVE Felipe David on the B-1 floor.

Now in light of this information let us return to Felipe David

A1: David was burnt by a fireball that fell 90+ floors

A2: David was burnt by unignited jet fuel that fell 90+ floors and exploded

Now its time to debunk...
A1 is impossible because a fireball could not pass elevator car 50 undetected and then burn Felipe David

A2 is impossible because jet fuel could not pass elevator car 50 undetected. Since the elevator car was not airtight the descending jet fuel would have entered the car and would have thereby been detected by the olfactories. Only 1 ppm of jet fuel in air is detectable by the human nose.

But this argument, in relation to A2 JREF’s unofficial explanation, is not enough for some. They argue that
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
it ONLY requires jet fuel to descend to the basement, and once there aerosol and ignite. The aerosol of jet fuel can occur at any time, and at multiple times, in multiple locations
As you can see it is near impossible to argue against proponants of this Harry Potter logic that ignores all the variables involved such as temperature, UEL/LEL, ignition source, et cetera. However the following argument should be considered as supplimentary to the “olfactory detection argument” above. The following argumnet can also be applied to the official fireball explanation.

110 floors = 417m
93 floors = 388m
Raindrop falls @ 9m/s
ETA jet fuel to basement = 45 seconds
Taking overpressure into consideration = approx. 30 seconds

Car 50 ascended approx. 7 seconds from B2

Plane impact: (i) severed elevator cables and (ii) jet fuel started to fall down shaft
ETA jet fuel to basement B1 = 30 secs
ETA car 50 to basment B1 = (guesstimation no more than 15 secs)
Conclusion: it is not possible for jet fuel to catch much less pass car 50

Implication:
- we know car 50 was above Felipe David
- that means explosion happened below car 50
- that means jet fuel had to pass car 50 and then explode
- this is not possible since car 50 reached B1 long before the jet fuel
- so whatever exploded below car 50 and Felipe David was not caused by unignited jet fuel falling 90+ floors, aerosolising, and then exploding.

Possible objections:
(1)car 50 was not above Felipe but already arrived at B1-2 when Felipe heard explosion

(a)this objection ignores the testimony of Philip Morelli,
(b)it ignores the testimony of Marlene Cruz (which I discuss in greater detail later)
(c)if car 50 already arrived at B1-2 then Felipe would’ve heard the free falling car 50 passing before he heard the explosion below. Because he did not hear car 50 passing we can assume that car 50 was above Felipe when he heard the explosion.
(d)if car 50 already arrived at B1-2 when Felipe heard the explosion then the occupants of car 50 would also have been burnt by the intense heat. Because they were not burnt by the intense heat we can assume that car 50 was above Felipe when felt the intesne heat from the explosion below

(2)the falling jet fuel did reach Felipe David before car 50

(a)please suppport such an argument with sound reasoning
(b) and then address the "olfactory detection argument"

(3)
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
had Felipe David experienced a high explosive detonation he would have been ripped apart. His injuries are a result of heat damage and not detonation damage.
(a) Your wrongly assuming Felipe was standing in close proximity to the blast wave. Obviously because he was not ripped to pieces we can rule this possibility out. In truth nobody knows the exact location of the explosion. Testimony however from William Rodriguez and a dozen others on B1 suggests that the explosion came from somwhere within the mechanical room below. If this was true, then this confirms that Felipe was not standing next to the immediate blast wave.

(b) Besides miscellaneous injuries from explosives include “burns from fire or radiation” http://www.fireengineering.com/artic...html?id=204602 There were burn injuries from the 1993 WTC bombing, the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing etc. So unless you are arguing that explosives can’t cause burn injuries I don’t see the point in your objection above.

so gumboot, i will waiting for your response. and please avoid ducking or avoiding the main problems i.e. the arguments that prove your JREF unofficial explanation - IMPOSSIBLE

peace
thewholesoul 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
Old 22nd May 2008, 02:13 PM   #238
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,196
Moving on, let us revisit the testimony of Marlene Cruz

No 3 Marlene Cruz was inside the freight elevator car 50

“I was gonna go do a job, and I got on the elevator – the freight elevator – and I heard the first explosion, and the elevator blew up, and the doors blew up, and it dropped. I was lucky that the elevator got caught between two floors, the “B” levels, the basement floors, you know, where all the mechanics are. And with the screaming and yelling the coworkers pulled the elevator guy out and myself…When I heard that explosion, the first thing I thought was, “Here we go again: another bomb.” [she had survived the 1993 bombing]

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb

The (a) “explosion came from below” interpretation is more compatible than the (b) “explosion came from above” interpretation

-the car was blown “up” and the doors “blew up” supports (a) over (b)

-indeed it makes no sense how an explosion approx. 75+ floors above could cause the elevator and doors to blow upwards.

-As explained the jet fuel or fireball could not reach car 50 until it had stopped. But by that time the damage was ALREADY done to the elevator doors. This fact supports (a) over (b)

-The fact that the explosion immediately reminded her of the “1993 bombing” supports (a) over (b) because the 1993 bomb exploded in the basment not in the upper sections of the building

-The fact that some people on the 91st floor didn’t hear the impact on the 93rd floor supports (a) over (b) because it seems highly unlikely that occupants in car 50, presumably below the the 15th floor, could hear the impact 75+ floors above.

-The fact that Cruz associates the physical damage to the elevator door with the explosion support (a) over (b) because the “sound” of an explosion 75+ floors above could hardly inflict structural damage to an elevator.

-Philip Morelli’s testimony supports (a) over (b) because it confirms that an explosion was heard first and then car 50 fell afterwards.

-Felipe David’s testimony supports (a) over (b) because it confirms that explosion was heard before an elevator fell

Possible objections:
(1)But Arturo Griffith stated the “ominous noise from above”?

(a)after checking the source, these words are not said by Arturo Griffith but by Thomas Sutcliffe the person who wrote the article for the London Independent
(b)assuming they were his own words he could have been mistaken and believed the sound came from above (speed of sound is 340m/s, doppler effect)
(c)any interview I have heard of Griffith he never re-states that the noise comes from above
(d)Marlene Cruz, the other occupant of car 50 never stated the noise came from above
(e)Given Griffith’s state of mine during the ordeal (hands over head thinking i’m gonna die!!), given the fact that he never experienced the 1993 bombing, and given the fact that he did not maintain consciousness throughout the entire ordeal – more weight, if any, should be ascribed to the testimony of Marlene Cruz who seems to have possessed far more presence of mind during the traumatic experience.

(2)But how could the explosion from below cause the elevator to drop?

(a) It didn’t. The explosion below happen either just before the plane impact (Rodriguez’s account), simultaneously, or just after the plane impact above. It was the cables being severed that caused the elevators to drop.
thewholesoul 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
Old 22nd May 2008, 02:21 PM   #239
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,258
Soul:
What do you plan to do with your "smoking gun"?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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
Old 22nd May 2008, 03:38 PM   #240
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
What a tour de force in word twisting far, far beyond what your sources warrant, thewholesoul. I'll see if I get around to comment on some of it during the weekend. But that I will only do for the benefit of the lurkers and new readers who might stumble across this thread in the future.

ETA
New York Times: Ideas & Trends; For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing

Last edited by Norseman; 22nd May 2008 at 04:01 PM. Reason: Spelling
Norseman 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.