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 29th November 2007, 10:00 PM   #81
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
You are definitely in the running for the poster of the most absurd and needlessly rambling post in this threat, SD. It is needlessly redundant and full of absurd remarks which I can only conclude were based on your misunderstanding of what we who know something about fire fighting operations and explosives were saying.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Yet another contradiction. Earlier in your comment you do not care to provide witnesses for the "jet fuel pool in the basement theory" yet rely on witnesses to describe jet fuel running all over the place. At impact level, yes, but in the basement, no. You need witnesses to report the fact jet fuel was in the impact areas, but reject witnesses who don't describe pools of jet fuel in the basement.
Errr...Which of us even mentioned pools of fuel. You seem to be confusing us with the woo-woos who saw pools of molten steel. Obviously, pools of fuel would not have deflagrated with any force. It would have sat there and burned quietly with a humongous cloud of sooty black smoke pouring out of every possible opening into the surrounding streets. Nor do most of here think that the fuel coming down the shafts would remain a fluid, but that it would become very well aerosolized and oxygenated and thus ready to deflagrate with nearly the force that it would in the combustion chamber of a jet engine. We aren't saying that the fuel pooled, you are saying that we said it. We are not that stupid.


Quote:
Straw of course but I will entertain. Why couldn't someone be watching with their finger on the button so to speak? What is the point?
What would be the point of setting it off before the first responders had responded?


Quote:
1. To hamper rescue/firefighting efforts.
Then they screwed up, because there were no fires in the basement to fight. It became an EMT operation, for the most part. That was really a small part of the force of first responders available.


Quote:
2. To help bring the towers down. They knew it wouldn't get it done in 1993 so perhaps they tried again with planes this time, or to help rig the core in the basement levels to assist in the collapse.
Considering that an obviously much more powerful bomb in 1993 failed to do any significant structural damage to the core columns, I fail to see how anyone clever enough to plan the airstrikes would have thought that this little trouser cough was going to make any kind of difference in so far as bringing down the structure was concerned. The existance of the spires in both buildings proves that they had, in simple fact, no effect.

Quote:
3. Kill and injure as many people as possible.
Wouldn't the demolition charges in the upper levels do that more efficiently had they allowed more fire fighters to gain those levels?
leftysergeant 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 29th November 2007, 10:09 PM   #82
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Owww, my optimism!!

So predictably, you managed to not understand a single thing I wrote.

Some things truly never change.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
The firefighter’s never got to the impact zone…except a firefighting effort.
Contradiction number 1 noted.
You can’t split the firefighting efforts because there weren’t any, yet you described an attempt in your paragraph.
Contradiction number 2 noted.
We do agree then that rescue efforts were delayed or at least hindered by a split in firefighter’s forces as proven by Ed’s account as well as others.
My suggestion as a possible motivation to split firefighting efforts stands and is not disproved. Rescue efforts which I associated with firefighting efforts were split and hampered as well. Your opinion of such distractions is a moot point.
Uh huh. In your sequence of events, there would have been two firefighters that made it to the 78th floor, with no firefighting gear, but alas! a devilish ruse to set off explosives in the basement split the firefighting effort, and only one was able to get there, not enough to stop the fire, the one that made no difference at all since your same conspirators triggered demolition charges to level the building anyway... How Fiendishly Clever you're not.

Oh Look, here's another reason why that makes no sense: Say I was the evil genius behind it all, and for whatever stupid reason I needed to delay the firefighting efforts. And I've got a truckload worth of explosives I can put in play. Why would I set them off randomly in the basement, when instead I could use the same resources to destroy the stairwells, and eliminate any possibility of fighting the fires? Hmm?

Admit it, either there is no NWO plot at work here, or I'm smarter than they are, i.e. they suck. In any event, your speculative reason for why anyone would put explosives in the basement is just frelling crazy. It's right up there on the list of classic inflations with A-train's highjackers jumping out the wheel wells, or Christophera's C4-coated rebar, or Killtown's insistence that Flight 93 would have crumpled like an accordion on impact. It's far too dumb to even be funny.

I reiterate, you cannot construct a possible motive for simultaneous bombs in the basement. Strike one.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
From the terrorist’s point of view, even they didn’t think the towers would collapse by plane impact alone which would necessitate at least in their view additional explosives. See OBL’s statements. I’m not arguing from an “inside job” point of view at this point. A truck bomb in the basement is of course consistent with terrorist activities despite who you think the terrorists are. If I'm not mistaken, the goal of the 1993 attack was to bring the towers down, correct?
You're talking about the terrorists that you don't think exist, right?

What a stupid operation. If there's doubt that an attack would fail, you escalate, not complicate. Use a bigger truck bomb or a larger aircraft. Hit a weaker target. Wait for a better opportunity. You don't try to set up a truck bomb that goes off at the same time as an aircraft impact. Not even the Swiss are that good. You wind up with double the complexity and four times the risk.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Preposterous? Hardly. Contradicting yourself multiple times to disprove a ‘motivation’ theory is preposterous. Using opinion in an attempt to disprove a fact is preposterous.
I agree. And that's precisely what you're doing here.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Someone who supports the NIST report almost wholeheartedly yet attempts to disprove the NIST report wrong is preposterous. The NIST report categorically states that a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage. You are contradicting their analysis by suggesting jet fuel made its way down the shafts, pooled, and later ignited causing the damage.
What? No, they do not. NIST never states that "a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage." They state that jet fuel traveling down the shafts is what caused the damage. There is no contradiction at all between myself and NIST on this point. NIST actually reports multiple fireballs, depending on local constraints, not one big one roaring down the shafts. Try reading it.

NIST only treats the basement damage very, very superficially, and for good reason. It had almost no impact on the structure. Its only relevance, from their perspective, was its effect on occupant response and emergency operations.

There's far too much straw in your post. Please fix it.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Ryan, you realize there was the potential for fire in more areas that just the impact zone. Sorry , this point is rejected because you focus on the impact zone only, and not the entire structure susceptibility to fire.
There were also fires ignited in more areas than the impact zone. Nonetheless, firefighting efforts would have concentrated on the impact zone, had there been any way at all to attack it. Elsewhere the fires were relatively easy to control and posed a far lower threat to the structure. And, again, in your special corner of the universe, the threat wasn't from fire at all, but from demolition charges. For some reason you keep forgetting your own theory, possibly because it's totally ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
You are are suppose to be an expert on the NIST report yet argue against their conclusion of a fireball causing the damage in favor of large amounts of jet fuel making its way to the basement then pooling, without anyone noticing and then igniting.
There's no argument between myself and NIST. This is the second time I've had to ask you to put down the strawman.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
One there is nothing miraculous about the event as emergency brakes appear to be a standard mechanical feature on elevators in high rise structures.
NIST wasn’t slightly inaccurate, they were flat wrong on multiple occasions by stating car 50 fell to the basement pits and didn’t stop!
It is pretty miraculous that the emergency brakes would catch the elevator a mere two or three floors before impact, after falling from the vicinity of the 49th floor. All it would have taken was another tenth of a second, and Mr. Griffith and the other occupant would have been killed.

As I already stated, NIST is inaccurate in this regard. It's not the only error. It is, however, of little consequence.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
The viability of this jet fuel downpour of course has everything do with it. Why? Because you would have numerous witnesses describing the amount of fuel pouring into the elevator cars, onto the floors, etc. This is why I suspect you couldn’t and won’t produce anyone who witnessed such jet as there was none. I also suspect that is why you don’t care about eyewitnesses or their statements or what happened to them in relation to the basement level explosion/s. Their statements do not support jet fuel pooling in the basement, so you ignore them! Excellent strategy!
Rmackey, you are arguing jet fuel traveled down the shafts and later exploded. NIST says a fireball traveled down the shaft. Why are you disputing NIST’s assumption again?
Uh huh. I suppose you think there were people in the elevator shafts, dutifully recording the volume of fluid passing by, while ignoring the other things going on around them... If I say anything inconsistent with witness statements, that's worth exploring, but you gain no traction at all here. I haven't.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Ok, explosives in the basement make no sense unless it is 1993?
It is interesting that you ignore the first descriptions of eyewitness testimony and what clearly reminded them of the 1993 truck bombing, the working theory of the FBI and Port Authority, etc.
There never was a "working theory" of either the FBI or the Port Authority that truck bombs had gone off in the basements. Any such speculation by individuals was based on woefully incomplete evidence. Mr. Pecoraro is an example -- he initially suspected a truck bomb, then heard (incorrectly) that it was a helicopter crash at low level, and believed that to be true until receiving better information.

With the total picture in hand, explosives in the basement make no sense. That's all there is to it.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
It is the descriptions of survivors in the elevators that disprove the “jet fuel flow down the shafts excuse for the damage in the numerous basement levels”.
I’m quite aware of the elevator shaft arrangement as listed by Norseman long before Gravy’s paper was peddled around here.
No survivor description is even faintly at odds with the theory. Indeed, several report smelling the jet fuel in question. Others were burned. You're lying.

If you were aware of the elevator shaft arrangement, then why on earth did you have to be told eleven times, by three different people, that three shafts ran from the impact zone to the basement?

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
If you examine his comment you will notice something. Jet fuel pours down the elevator shaft in the first part of the segment and then later in the comment a fireball. Arturo Griffith proves that Car 50 can be ruled out with regards to the "pooling jet fuel" theory.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Jet fuel pouring would naturally precede a jet fuel fireball. (And probably afterward too, we're talking about an awful lot of fuel.) There is no contradiction.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Thanks for the character attack. I appreciate it.
While my comment may have been snide, it's a simple fact that you refuse to give a straight answer. I remind you, you said that the jet fuel didn't have enough energy to cause that much damage. I asked you to back that up. You've provided no support of any kind. I proved rigorously that a mere 1% of the jet fuel could easily cause all the damage seen and more, and you're still capering about.

If you want to be treated as an equal in this discussion, you'd better behave like one. That means backing up what you say. Apparently, you can't.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Great! We have a bunch of guesses that can be tweaked to fit the results. Kind of like the computer models we discussed a while back, but I digress...
Actually, the NIST fuel dispersion estimate wasn't tweaked, and wasn't used in any result, excepting the fuel loading on the fire floors. In that problem, NIST varied the fuel load by a factor of two and found that it made no significant difference. No tweaking. Your ignorance of the NIST Report appears to be nearly total.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Are you on record criticizing other portions of the NIST report? If so have you contacted NIST to make or suggest corrections as others have?
You don't have to answer those of course.
Unlike you, I have no problem giving straight answers.

I am indeed on record criticizing the NIST Report. It forms a whole chapter in my whitepaper. Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you're unable to follow links. If you click these three words, it will take you to a copy.

The final location of Elevator 50 is not significant enough to matter. However, there is one major area that I believe NIST is wrong, and two others that I believe are still open. Of these three, one (disposition of jet fuel on impact) is being treated by Purdue, and unless there are problems with it I will simply consider the Purdue results as more up-to-date. The other two should be revisited in the WTC 7 final report, which is still pending. Patience.

However, as I've said here several times, if those other two items are not treated in the WTC 7 report, I will indeed contact NIST with my concerns. I actually know enough about the subject and science in general to criticize their work usefully, and I will be glad to help.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
I think your missing an important point that I address below. How is that energy released into a destructive form.You understand that the way the energy is released is different between jet fuel and tnt. You understand that in a jet fuel explosion, all of the energy does not support the shockwave/ blast pressure due to reactions at the molecular level.
I didn't miss it at all. Did you read where I contrasted the two energy approaches? One of them is the most optimistic case, the other is the most pessimistic case. I've bracketed every possible form of energy release in my energy calculations. There is no error.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Lets see if paper and pencil support reality...

Can you detail what part of the interior you are referring to and the type of damage?
Can you explain the structure in relation to the interior part you mention above and the damage you are referring to
Reading comprehension, Swing. My model treats the entire interior and overestimates -- by a huge amount -- the pressure wave. I don't need detail because there is such a vast source of energy present, it exceeds any rational estimate of damage.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
You left out a key component. People being injured by the blast, not just killed. It may have not killed anyone inside because you are unaware of their location in relation to the pools of jet fuel you state could have caused the explosion. This key point contradicts the extensive damage to walls, parking garages, offices, etc. Yet another contradiction. The principal cause of damage was a shock wave, not fire. Remember people were burned in the 1993 truck bombing as well, and most it was believed died from a collapsing wall, much like the reports after 9/11 about a wall being blown up and injuring one survivors face.
I left out nothing. Reading comprehension again, Swing. People are injured at 1 PSI or often less. But nobody was killed by the blast. That puts a pretty hard upper limit on the strength of the pressure wave. As a result, we have a low pressure event over a large area, and that automatically rules out high explosives. Fuel deflagration, on the other hand, fits perfectly. I'm afraid if you still don't understand, you never will, because it's about as obvious as it can be.

By the way, I never said it was caused by "pools" of jet fuel. Your strawman apparently is a triplet.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Again the pressure pulse/shock wave is created differently at the molecular level as I pointed out above.
Pressure pulse / shock waves are not created at the molecular level. They are not turbulence. You're just making up stuff that sounds scientific now. My derivation above should be a warning sign to you that I'm not going to be fooled by such amateurish tripe.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Here is yet another error. It was not one large area of course, but divided into multiple floors separated by large floors of concrete. What you have proposed is a large empty cube for a model. You don’t place walls, shafts, machinery, shops, parking garages, offices, subway tunnels, etc. into your ‘cube’ that would dissipate the energy through the destruction process.
Your applying your calculations to an empty cube instead of a model based upon reality. Are you sure you don’t work for NIST?
My model, again, is a deliberate overestimate. The subdivision into multiple floors and areas means that I don't have to pressurize the whole thing, but my model does anyway. The "dissipation" you discuss is treated rigorously by my constant-volume approach, which allows you to build up that pressure as slowly and compartmentalized as you want. I already handled those concerns. You're simply out of your depth.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Doesn’t the ideal gas law state that real fluids at low density and high temperature, approximate the behavior of a classical ideal gas. However, at lower temperatures or a higher density, a real fluid deviates strongly from the behavior of an ideal gas, particularly as it condenses from a gas into a liquid or solid.
Ryan, what temperatures are you applying to your model to get the most accurate ideal gas law calculation?
There's nothing "accurate" about my computation by design. Deliberate overestimate. That applies to the Ideal Gas Law as well. I know my numbers are high, but it doesn't matter. The real effects of the gas, not contained in my model, make my hypothesis even more likely.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Not just in practice, mind you but in reality. Yet rather than confront reality, you use the empty cube model with all the fuel in one spot and ignited at once. I might point out that you did not detail the method of ignition in your model.
Don't have to. Ignite it any way you like. There's still a huge energy surplus.

You really don't understand modeling at all, do you?

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
So given that we accept your 290Kg of fuel, his so called overestimate suddenly becomes an underestimate. Because in your own words, in such a scenario, the 290Kg of jet fuel would not burn all at once and will not be terribly efficient. Therefore, your minimum amount of fuel required to produce the overestimated pressure, would be higher than your result.
What you wrote here makes no sense at all. 290 kg of jet fuel is proven to contain more energy than is needed to cause the destruction in the basement. Period. It never becomes an underestimate. I guess that strawman is a quadruplet?

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Now we are jumping from the empty cube model to support reality. The empty cube model left out everything that would redistribute and separate the total amount of fuel.
Redistribute it any way you like. My model is still an overestimate.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
This whole line of reasoning is of course flawed, because you describe no damage in your cube nor in the basement levels.
Au contraire, I describe a 5 PSI overpressure. That would pretty much trash the entire cube and/or basement levels. I don't have to count the broken lightbulbs or cracks in the plaster -- any damage you claim to have, my model is worse. Period.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Considering jet fuel detonation relies upon the necessary fuel/air ratio component it has nothing to do with straws as the jet fuel expert statement I quoted below explains. The fuel pooled then ignited, obviously only the surface of this pool will ignite and begin to burn. If we imagine a pool of 290Kg of fuel, then when ignited, it is only the top layer of this fuel that will burn to begin with, thus at any one time this 290Kg of fuel has only a percentage ignited.
Ah, there's that "pooling" strawman again.

This is really quite funny:

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
According to this expert:Jet fuel is similar to kerosene and, unlike gasoline, requires very high temperatures to burn. Unless it is in vapor or mist form — which can occur in a plane crash — jet fuel does not explode. Additives raise the flashpoint of jet fuel, further reducing the likelihood that it will burn. Jet fuel doesn't explode easily, experts say, and fire would not have spread along airport pipelines. Source: Alleged plot's damage would have been limited. [Irrelevant anecdote about a burning tank of diesel fuel deleted]
OK, you've reached a new depth of silliness. This reminds me of Killtown when I had to explain what "volatility" and "aerosol" meant.

If you have a tank of diesel fuel, it will burn, not explode. Sure. Everyone knows this. This is because the fuel isn't aereated, and there's relatively little vapor. You have to expose it to air, preferably as a fine mist, and then it will jolly well explode.

Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, that jet fuel that gets smashed through a building at 450 MPH or more, then pours down about 900 feet of elevator shaft, then -- just in case there's anything bigger than a droplet left -- splatters around the hard surfaces of an elevator shaft, is not aereated??

That's your theory now?

Better cling to that thread with all your might. It won't support your weight, but it's the only refuge you have left from reason.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
No need to provide witnesses? LOL. I would state that too if I were trying to prove large pools of jet fuel ignited after impact and caused the damage in the multiple levels of the basement structure. Again, not a single person describes 1 gallon of jet fuel let alone 100 gallons or more. Keep this in mind when you state you have no need to provide witnesses.
Ack! The strawman returns! I am not claiming that "large pool" of jet fuel ignited. At no time does it recoalesce and lose its oxygenation.

And over 70% of witnesses interviewed from the whole ruddy tower smelled jet fuel. That's thousands of witnesses. If they can smell it, that means it's been aerosolized. And that means it can explode.

What I have no need to provide is any detail regarding the extent or location of damage. Once again, my approach guarantees there is plenty of energy. Plenty of air, too. It's totally feasible.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Your problem however is that you apply the same shock wave process to jet fuel as you do to TNT. This is an error of course. The process occurring at the molecular level is different resulting in a non-ideal explosive in the jet fuel form. The jet fuel will not have all of the energy supporting the shock wave and the pressure pulse will not reflect all of the energy released during detonation so you can not apply the same pressure pulse to the two explosions. TNT because the oxidizer is combined with the fuel at the molecular level results in an ideal explosive.
"Ideal Explosive," huh. You're in my field, now, and even further out of yours. Let me give you some of the correct verbiage. You might learn something.

The words you're looking for are "Deflagration" and "Detonation." This refers to the speed of the combustion wave in the reacting material. If that speed is lower than the local speed of sound, then it's a deflagration. This is significant because if the reaction speed exceeds the speed of sound, the blast front is discontinuous in pressure, i.e. a shock wave is created. A deflagration, on the other hand, has a measurable rise time between the beginning and maximum overpressure, usually in a few milliseconds. The rise time changes the effective impulse of the blast, and so it is sometimes possible to destroy things through a detonation that would survive a higher overpressure in a deflagration.

Jet fuel actually can detonate, but usually deflagrates. This is determined by the Rankine-Hugoniot relationship, which is far outside your understanding so I will leave it at that. However, my calculation doesn't care whether it's a detonation or deflagration. The fact that no occupant was killed by blast pretty much ices it as a deflagration. There are no high explosives that deflagrate, by definition, therefore it was not caused by explosives. Period.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Now your jet fuel scenario which is 5 times more powerful doesn't do anywhere near the damage as the 1993 truck bomb. Why the reason I listed above.
Reading comprehension again. My explosion does more damage, is more energetic, but affects a wider area. Its peak overpressure is lower, as is its pressure-impulse on objects close by, as compared to the truck bomb. But it affects a much wider area. You're thinking about this in only one dimension, and that won't work.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Now your comparing the amount of explosives of 1993 with jet fuel and stating the same amount of explosives had to have been used in 2001. Tsk, tsk.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that, in order to do the damage seen in 2001 -- since it affected a wider area -- if it was explosives, it would have to be more explosives than were used in 1993. It's very simple to understand.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
The 1993 event killed 6 people. As this article points out, most if not all were killed by a collapsing wall. But people were also burned and injured by a concussive force as well. Yet no one would argue that a bomb didn't go off. To add to that, some thought that a plane had hit the building. So to point out the injuries in people to disprove the bomb in the basement is erroneous and rejected.
Again, you simply don't get it. Let me try again:

1. The "bomb" in 2001 affected a larger area than the bomb in 1993.
2. If the "bomb" in 2001 was, in fact, a bomb, it would have to be larger than the one in 1993.
3. This larger bomb would have killed many people outright due to blast.
4. This did not happen. Therefore we need another explanation.
5. Jet fuel deflagration would affect a larger area, but would also be less lethal in terms of blast.
6. Therefore, a "bomb" similar to the 1993 event is ruled out. Deflagration is still a viable candidate.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Yet another contradiction. Earlier in your comment you do not care to provide witnesses for the "jet fuel pool in the basement theory" yet rely on witnesses to describe jet fuel running all over the place. At impact level, yes, but in the basement, no. You need witnesses to report the fact jet fuel was in the impact areas, but reject witnesses who don't describe pools of jet fuel in the basement.
Once again, no "pools" are needed. Even Willie Rodriguez reported smelling jet fuel. The witnesses are all on my side, Swing.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Straw of course but I will entertain. Why couldn't someone be watching with their finger on the button so to speak? What is the point?
1. To hamper rescue/firefighting efforts.
2. To help bring the towers down. They knew it wouldn't get it done in 1993 so perhaps they tried again with planes this time, or to help rig the core in the basement levels to assist in the collapse.
3. Kill and injure as many people as possible.
As discussed above, this would be utterly capricious, inefficient, and self-inconsistent. Hardly the work of master conspirators. Your imagination runs wild, but runs poorly.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts.
What I've found is:
1. Your own theory contradicts the NIST report. (Closet truther? )
2. You do have issues with the NIST reports. (Not RMackey!!)
3. You recognize that NIST made errors in their report. (A debunker recognizes this!!?!?!)
4. You believe that flawed models reflect reality. (Now that's more like it!)
5. You believe that jet fuel, when ignited, produces the same pressure pulse that TNT creates when detonated thereby comparing a "non-ideal explosive i.e. jet fuel, with an "ideal explosive" tnt.
6. You believe that your jet fuel model, which apparently is 5 times more powerful than the 1993 truck bomb, did very little damage in comparison to the 1993 attack.
7. Witnesses are only to be used when they support your side of an argument.
1. Not at all. You merely fail to understand the NIST Report.
2. Indeed I do, and this is not secret. Try reading what I write sometime.
3. Many people recognize errors in NIST. This doesn't in any way affect the unavoidable conclusion that what we saw was due to aircraft impact, and aircraft impact alone.
4. Nope. You simply can't understand even a simple derivation.
5. Nope. And please learn the following words: detonate, deflagrate, low explosive, high explosive, brisance, shock wave, pressure wave, and sound speed.
6. Very little structural damage, yes. Perfectly ordinary. Kind of like the difference between FAEs and conventional bombs. Actually, almost exactly like that.
7. Nope. Read more closely. I just don't need the detail to run that calculation. By the way, if you ever find a witness that saw a truck bomb and hasn't changed his story eleven times, then I might begin to take you seriously.


But hey, this is progress. At least Swing isn't still claiming jet fuel didn't have enough energy. He's now moved on to claim that it couldn't explode at all. Equally stupid, but it's progress.

Point of interest: The fuel explosion in my model is only 1% of the jet fuel available. If it was somehow possible to trigger all of the jet fuel inside a WTC Tower as an optimal fuel-air explosion, the total energy release would be an amazing 1.25TJ, or equivalent to 290,000 pounds of TNT. Naturally, it's nearly impossible to set off such a massive and complex FAE, but if it was done, the entire Tower would be blasted to pieces, instantly. Lots of energy in that jet fuel.

School's out, Swing. Hope you learned something.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 29th November 2007 at 10:11 PM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2007, 10:25 PM   #83
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Ouch!

Now that was a smack-down!

CHF 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 29th November 2007, 10:31 PM   #84
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Perhaps, but he won't notice...



Needless to say, I'm not doing this for Swing, since it's painfully clear that he doesn't want to understand. But other people might enjoy my derivation.

Is it really so hard to understand that plane crashes create jet fuel-powered fireballs? And that when these go off indoors, bad things happen? Is it really that foreign of a concept?
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2007, 10:44 PM   #85
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
The part that really amazes me is how Swing takes "victims were burned" and "people smelled jet fuel from the impact zone all the way down to the sub levels"...adds them up and gets: "bomb in the basement!"

It's friggin' bizarre...and so is his rationale for why bombs would be set off down there.

For ages it was "they wanted to weaken the sub-levels;" now it was apparently "to split the FDNY."

He's got his warped conclusion and is desperately trying to make things fit around it, but he's only making his case worse.

Last edited by CHF; 29th November 2007 at 10:45 PM.
CHF 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 29th November 2007, 10:49 PM   #86
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
Talking

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Say I was the evil genius behind it all...
Well, you'd Certainly have to demand Sharks. With lasers!

__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch 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 29th November 2007, 11:59 PM   #87
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
I've been kind of role-playing this to see if there were any better way to have done it, were I a terrorist out to inflict maximum casualties.

Since a truckload of ANFO in the basement fizzled in 93, that is obviously out this time around. Several smaller charges, scattered around the various sub-levels would have a lot more effect, especially if so set to cause massive gasoline fires. This would involve setting small charges under several vehicles on each level of the parking garages.

But how to get it all past the one bomb dog? Difficult at best.

So that leaves placing stashes of class B fuel in proximaty to the elevator shafts, right where it would be noticed by curious janitorial staff.
No, there is just no way to manage it that I can see.

Cutting charges on the core columns below ground level would have toppled the buildings once collapse was initiated.

There just isn't any kind of device that I can imagine that would have functioned as it would need to to produce the blast effects seen.
leftysergeant 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 30th November 2007, 07:44 AM   #88
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
R.MAckey:

Excellent post. I almost responded to SD myself, I'm glad now that I waited. You got the point across much better than I could, clearly and with good backing. My explanation would have been less scientificy. But hey, I'm no rocket scientist*, or anything .


*-I'm sure that joke got old long ago, but I can't resist. I seem to have developed a thing for corn...

Last edited by Hellbound; 30th November 2007 at 07:45 AM.
Hellbound 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 30th November 2007, 09:03 AM   #89
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,910
Smile

Awesome! Thanks R. Mackey! That explanation was incredibly easy, for even a layman such as myself, to follow. The forums where I usually post are way behind the times. They are haarping on about DEWs now. In a few months, when they get to this baloney, I'll have a quick and ready trap to set for them. I'm glad there are people like you that take the time and effort to demonstrate how completely idiotic truthers are.
Wolrab 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 30th November 2007, 09:47 AM   #90
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
The forums where I usually post are way behind the times. They are haarping on about DEWs now.
And you, sir, have a dry wit. No way you can convince me that was a Freudian slip.

In case you haven't already seen it, last year I demonstrated how simple mathematics can also disprove the entire palette of DEW theories, in this post. A little simple analysis goes a long way.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2007, 12:00 AM   #91
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,255
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Needless to say, I'm not doing this for Swing, since it's painfully clear that he doesn't want to understand. But other people might enjoy my derivation.
One of those people would be me. Thanks for the writeup; it helps establish perspective regarding the amounts of energy potentially available. That happens to be a bit difficult for the layman to conceptualize properly.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 1st December 2007, 02:08 PM   #92
LastChild
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,062
Ok which shaft/s did the fireball/s travel down? And was there also explosions on the 44th or in the stairs?

LastChild 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 1st December 2007, 02:28 PM   #93
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,070
Originally Posted by LastChild View Post
Ok which shaft/s did the fireball/s travel down? And was there also explosions on the 44th or in the stairs?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ima..._elevators.gif
6,7 and 50.
__________________
"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 1st December 2007, 02:29 PM   #94
Mooseman
Thinker
 
Mooseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
Let us start over all again
Mooseman 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 3rd December 2007, 11:00 AM   #95
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
So predictably, you managed to not understand a single thing I wrote.
Quote:

Uh huh. In your sequence of events, there would have been two firefighters that made it to the 78th floor, with no firefighting gear, but alas! a devilish ruse to set off explosives in the basement split the firefighting effort, and only one was able to get there, not enough to stop the fire, the one that made no difference at all since your same conspirators triggered demolition charges to level the building anyway... How Fiendishly Clever you're not.
Rmackey, were there calls for firefighters besides the one you mention to help fight the fire in the South Tower? Yes or no?
Let me refresh your memory to prove you wrong yet again:
Battalion Seven: "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones"
Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Chief Palmer reports on the 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones, we've got isolated pockets of fire, we're gonna need at least two hand lines up there"
Battalion Seven Alpha (Aide): "Seven alpha from the Battalion Seven"
Battalion Seven: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15"
Ladder 15 Officer: "Fifteen"
Battalion Seven: "I'm going to need three of your firefighters out of stairweay to knock down two fires. We've got a house line stretched, if we can get some water on it and knock it down
Ladder 15: "Alright, 10-4, we're coming up ..."
Rmackey, I think we can agree that there were firefighting efforts involving more than just one man. This of course proves your earlier statement wrong that there were no firefighting efforts. But since you care not to admit your error, I will point it out to you.

Quote:
Oh Look, here's another reason why that makes no sense: Say I was the evil genius behind it all, and for whatever stupid reason I needed to delay the firefighting efforts. And I've got a truckload worth of explosives I can put in play. Why would I set them off randomly in the basement, when instead I could use the same resources to destroy the stairwells, and eliminate any possibility of fighting the fires? Hmm? Admit it, either there is no NWO plot at work here, or I'm smarter than they are, i.e. they suck. In any event, your speculative reason for why anyone would put explosives in the basement is just frelling crazy. It's right up there on the list of classic inflations with A-train's highjackers jumping out the wheel wells, or Christophera's C4-coated rebar, or Killtown's insistence that Flight 93 would have crumpled like an accordion on impact. It's far too dumb to even be funny.
HAAACHOO! So much straw in the air! Your opinion of the motivation does not disprove the motivation. I suppose you think the 1993 truck bombing was just as crazy, but holy cow they did it anyway. You remember the motivation for that don’t you?
Those are some crazy terrorists!

Hmmm a truck load of explosives to blow up stairwells. How pray tell will that happen? It is one thing to drive a truck into a parking garage quite another to drive a truck load of explosives into a stairwell. I suppose if you had a NWO shrinking machine you just might be able to get it done. You’ve totally ignored the other possible motivations: destroying the water pumps, etc. in the basement, an attempt to weaken the core to collapse the towers which failed in 1993 of course. You might also do it to kill people…hmm terrorists killing people…now that’s a novel idea.
I can reject the evil genius fallacy. If I’m an evil genius and can make it all happen, I use a suit case nuke and blow up a large portion of the city. Ahh but that didn’t happen so we can scratch the evil genius excuse.

Quote:
You're talking about the terrorists that you don't think exist, right?
Please repost where I stated terrorists don't exist? Thanks. If not, remove the field of straw you plant!

Quote:
What a stupid operation. If there's doubt that an attack would fail, you escalate, not complicate. Use a bigger truck bomb or a larger aircraft. Hit a weaker target. Wait for a better opportunity. You don't try to set up a truck bomb that goes off at the same time as an aircraft impact. Not even the Swiss are that good. You wind up with double the complexity and four times the risk.
Hmm a 100% guaranteed effective terrorist operation is what you are suggesting to support this statement. Any operation is going to have a measure of doubt about its success. The hijacks themselves are pretty risky themselves.
I can reject the evil genius fallacy. If I’m an evil genius and can make it all happen, I use a suit case nuke and blow up a large portion of the city. Ahh but that didn’t happen so we can scratch the evil genius excuse.

Quote:
I reiterate, you cannot construct a possible motive for simultaneous bombs in the basement. Strike one.
Simultaneous? So now you’ve taken one theory, a truck bomb, and turned it into multiple bombs? LOL! Why pray tell do you feel the need to do that in this thread?
I can construct numerous motives, you don’t accept them. One of those motives is based upon history, the collapse of the towers,which apparently you reject that motive. The others are really secondary to the discussion and have no impact on whether or not there was a bomb or as you say bombs in the basement.

Quote:
What? No, they do not. NIST never states that "a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage." They state that jet fuel traveling down the shafts is what caused the damage. There is no contradiction at all between myself and NIST on this point. NIST actually reports multiple fireballs, depending on local constraints, not one big one roaring down the shafts. Try reading it.
ROFLMAO! Ok lets examine this one paragraph and prove you wrong. You state NIST never states that “a fireball traveling down the elevator shafts is what caused the damage, but later on in your paragraph, you state that NIST reports multiple fireballs. I sure wish you would source the NIST report when you speak for them as I do below and for goodness sakes man, stop contradicting yourself.

1. "The doors were blown off by the fireball that came down the elevator shaft and the elevators cars were burned. (Basement level of WTC 1)." (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)
Here we see that NIST does state a fireball traveled down the shaft. No jet fuel, no multiple fireballs, but just one fireball.
I suggest, RMackey, you get your facts straight before labeling yourself as an expert on the NIST report.

Here is your quote from a previous comment supporting the fireball.
“R.Mackey -Anti-falling devices notwithstanding, there were lifts that did fall. I wouldn't have suggested this otherwise. The huge fireball in the sublevels cited by William Rodriguez did, in fact, issue from a freight elevator shaft after the elevator fell due to the impacts. Source: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post2927980”

Again, you contradict yourself, this time with your own words! Doesn’t that bug you a bit when you contradict yourself so often? Maybe if your nice to me, I will peer-review your paper to see if you contradict yourself there as much as you have on this thread.

Your theory based upon your own model is of course that at least 100 gallons of jet fuel made its way un-detected, un-ignited to the basement, pooled there, and then was ignited all at once to cause the damage witnessed in the basement. This model you pointed out doesn't really reflect reality in any way shape or form.

At least that is sort of what your model is based upon with the exception being an empty cube with no fuel falling down shafts.. After all, you didn’t split up the fuel as what would have happened in reality. Then you ignite the fuel all at once. In order to do that, the fuel would have to be in a single pool.

Quote:
NIST only treats the basement damage very, very superficially, and for good reason. It had almost no impact on the structure. Its only relevance, from their perspective, was its effect on occupant response and emergency operations
.
Can you source where NIST explained why they treated the basement damage superficially? Based upon the above contradictory paragraph, I can not accept anything you say with regards to NIST on faith alone, hence the request for the source of this statement.

Quote:
There's far too much straw in your post. Please fix it.
That straw as you cry are multiple examples of how jet fuel reacts in reality when ignited all at once.

Quote:
There were also fires ignited in more areas than the impact zone. Nonetheless, firefighting efforts would have concentrated on the impact zone, had there been any way at all to attack it. Elsewhere the fires were relatively easy to control and posed a far lower threat to the structure. And, again, in your special corner of the universe, the threat wasn't from fire at all, but from demolition charges. For some reason you keep forgetting your own theory, possibly because it's totally ridiculous.
Wait just a second. Earlier in the thread you stated there were no firefighting efforts at all and focused on the impact area alone, and now your encompassing other areas. Great. Your coming along at least.

Now your stating elsewhere fires were easy to control.
1. Please point out where I stated the threat was not from fire but from explosive demolitions alone? Nevermind, you can't!

2. Why are you confusing the threads discussion about the events in the basement of the tower with a theory about the cause of global collapse?

Quote:
There's no argument between myself and NIST. This is the second time I've had to ask you to put down the strawman.
Sure there is. You theory/model holds that all of the jet fuel pooled in the basement and then ignited to cause the damage. Or at least your empty cube model has all of the fuel igniting at once. A pool of jet fuel so to speak.
NIST above asserts that a fireball traveled down the shaft.
If you could prove yourself correct, please source where NIST believes that un-ignited jet fuel traveled down the 3 shafts or 1 shaft for that matter, pooled in the basement, and then ignited to cause the damage on the numerous basement levels. If you can’t provide this assessment by NIST, you of course contradict them by suggesting that there is no argument between you and NIST.

Quote:
It is pretty miraculous that the emergency brakes would catch the elevator a mere two or three floors before impact, after falling from the vicinity of the 49th floor. All it would have taken was another tenth of a second, and Mr. Griffith and the other occupant would have been killed.
I’m surprised, a scientist referencing miracles. I never thought I would see that on JREF.
Quote:
As I already stated, NIST is inaccurate in this regard. It's not the only error. It is, however, of little consequence.
Now apply this assessment to the entire report, and then you have the primary reason for University of Manchester's Professor of Structural Engineering,Colin Bailey calling for the computer models to be released...to check for errors.

Quote:
Uh huh. I suppose you think there were people in the elevator shafts, dutifully recording the volume of fluid passing by, while ignoring the other things going on around them... If I say anything inconsistent with witness statements, that's worth exploring, but you gain no traction at all here. I haven't.
Do I think that? No. Are there witnesses that were near elevator shafts that saw a fireball? Yes. Notice that they didn’t see jet fuel pouring into the shafts. Accounts of water in elevator cars, fireballs, damage, etc, yes, but no jet fuel which equates to no eyewitness testimony to support your theory that jet fuel in the basement was ignited to cause all of the damage witnessed.

Quote:
There never was a "working theory" of either the FBI or the Port Authority that truck bombs had gone off in the basements. Any such speculation by individuals was based on woefully incomplete evidence. Mr. Pecoraro is an example -- he initially suspected a truck bomb, then heard (incorrectly) that it was a helicopter crash at low level, and believed that to be true until receiving better information.
Yet another error by my friend, Mr. Mackey. There never was a working theory…hmm I will post a segment from the interview and a link to the video. Mr. Pecoraro has nothing to with the FBI’s working theory, which is straw of course. On the other hand, Mr. Pecoraro’s suspicions support the working theory as well as many other people who suffered in the basement explosion.
According to a terror expert interviewed by USA Today on 9/11, the FBI's initial working premise was that trucks packed with explosives aided the collapse of the twin towers, a fact that dovetails with reports of middle easterners being arrested after running away from truck bombs that later exploded that day.
Lauren Ashburn: "Joining me is Jack Kelley, now he is a foreign correspondent - war correspondent - and just came back from Israel. He has some information about these attacks. Jack, what can you tell us happened, first in New York."
Jack Kelly: "Um, apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time 2 planes hit the building, that there ... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."
Lauren Ashburn: "Now that's the first time were hearing that, so 2 planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?"
Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."
Just incase there is a transcribe error, you can view the news report here:
USA Today FBI Working Theory:
Or see more here:
Here is a second report confirming the theory by Rick Sanches of MSNBC:
Sanchez states,
”Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion.I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had an explosive device in it.”
Just in case there are transcript errors you can watch it here.
Apparently there was something fishy as bomb squads were present at the debris site as detailed by this emergency worker’s account which you can read here.

Proved wrong again, R. Mackey, as there was a working theory.


Quote:
With the total picture in hand, explosives in the basement make no sense. That's all there is to it.
There is a total picture of course, and you seem to miss most of the pieces or ignore them.
Based upon an even greater picture, then it makes complete sense. And that fact that you are uniformed about it (which is what I hope is the case) or you lied about makes it even more probable.

Quote:
No survivor description is even faintly at odds with the theory. Indeed, several report smelling the jet fuel in question. Others were burned. You're lying.
I smell cookies! Ahh there must be some cookies in the room. Shucks, nope, they were being baked on the other side of the building. The point being, smell of jet fuel in one area does not equate to the presence of jet fuel in the same area.
Please point to the number of survivors who witnessed jet fuel in the shafts?
If you can’t do that I understand, there are none that I'm aware of.

Quote:
If you were aware of the elevator shaft arrangement, then why on earth did you have to be told eleven times, by three different people, that three shafts ran from the impact zone to the basement?
I was hoping someone would point out which of the 3 shafts would be found full of jet fuel.
We have 3 shafts that according to your theory should have pools of jet fuel that ignited to create the damage in the area. Not a single person’s account describes pools/ or pool of jet fuel that were later ignited to cause the damage in the basement. Yet we have several people describing that damage in the basement that they thought was a repeat of the 1993 truck bomb.

Is there anything in the historical record prior to 9/11 where a jet fuel explosion from a plane reminded survivors of a truck bomb terrorist attack?

Quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Jet fuel pouring would naturally precede a jet fuel fireball. (And probably afterward too, we're talking about an awful lot of fuel.) There is no contradiction.
Don't forget, according to your model, you need that jet fuel to make its way to the basement undeterred to be ignited all at once. It also has to bypass everything that might ignite it on the way down and it has to do it undetected.
Your model or theory has the jet fuel pooling. Your calculations, if I’m not mistaken, were based upon the total amount of jet fuel igniting at once, hence the pool of jet fuel. There is no need to obfuscate the issue.
The contradiction of course is that NIST states a fireball did it, and you state fuel, ignited later, did it.

Quote:
Actually, the NIST fuel dispersion estimate wasn't tweaked, and wasn't used in any result, excepting the fuel loading on the fire floors. In that problem, NIST varied the fuel load by a factor of two and found that it made no significant difference. No tweaking. Your ignorance of the NIST Report appears to be nearly total.
So NIST varied the fuel loads, etc, but that doesn't equate to tweaking?

Quote:
Unlike you, I have no problem giving straight answers.
Straight, contradicting answers...I understand though, your only defending the official story which is full of contradictions...but alas the straw has been harvested already.
Quote:
I am indeed on record criticizing the NIST Report. It forms a whole chapter in my whitepaper. Oh, yeah, I forgot -- you're unable to follow links. If you click these three words, it will take you to a copy.
As I said to you earlier, I will peer review that for you if you are nice to me and if you think the NWO lizard kings will let me.
Quote:
The final location of Elevator 50 is not significant enough to matter. However, there is one major area that I believe NIST is wrong, and two others that I believe are still open. Of these three, one (disposition of jet fuel on impact) is being treated by Purdue, and unless there are problems with it I will simply consider the Purdue results as more up-to-date. The other two should be revisited in the WTC 7 final report, which is still pending. Patience.
Not significant? This whole location of 50 is the excuse given for a wide range of damage to the North Tower. An excuse that is wrong. So we have a wide range of damage at impact that NIST chalks up coming from an elevator hitting the basement. But the elevator didn't do that, so what caused it? We are left to wonder.

Why do you think NIST sub-contracted for the fuel distribution scenario?
Also, if Purdue is doing the work, that doesn't bring a whole lot of confidence to the problem as their other animations are quite comical when compared to reality.
Quote:
However, as I've said here several times, if those other two items are not treated in the WTC 7 report, I will indeed contact NIST with my concerns. I actually know enough about the subject and science in general to criticize their work usefully, and I will be glad to help.
Time will tell, now won't it.
Quote:
I didn't miss it at all. Did you read where I contrasted the two energy approaches? One of them is the most optimistic case, the other is the most pessimistic case. I've bracketed every possible form of energy release in my energy calculations. There is no error.
How is the energy released in jet fuel?
How is the energy released in TNT?
Why is the blast lethality different? I know. Do you?
Ryan the only thing you proved, assuming the numbers are correct, is that the potential energy resides in 100 gallons of jet fuel sitting in a large empty cube could produce a large amount of energy when detonated in an empty cube. Your model assumes the exact fuel vapor/air ratio is correct as well.
In no way did you detail how that energy would be released as I pointed out that difference between TNT and a fuel based explosive. I pointed out a real world example involving not 100 gallons of jet fuel but 1,000,000 gallons and the ignition source of lighting and it did not match your model. Imagine that, a real world scenario not matching reality. Are you positive you don’t work for NIST?

Quote:
I left out nothing. Reading comprehension again, Swing. People are injured at 1 PSI or often less. But nobody was killed by the blast. That puts a pretty hard upper limit on the strength of the pressure wave. As a result, we have a low pressure event over a large area, and that automatically rules out high explosives. Fuel deflagration, on the other hand, fits perfectly. I'm afraid if you still don't understand, you never will, because it's about as obvious as it can be.
Quote:
By the way, I never said it was caused by "pools" of jet fuel. Your strawman apparently is a triplet.
What term describes the volume of the un-ignited jet fuel in the basement would you prefer? Puddle?


Quote:
Pressure pulse / shock waves are not created at the molecular level. They are not turbulence. You're just making up stuff that sounds scientific now. My derivation above should be a warning sign to you that I'm not going to be fooled by such amateurish tripe.


My model, again, is a deliberate overestimate. The subdivision into multiple floors and areas means that I don't have to pressurize the whole thing, but my model does anyway. The "dissipation" you discuss is treated rigorously by my constant-volume approach, which allows you to build up that pressure as slowly and compartmentalized as you want. I already handled those concerns. You're simply out of your depth.



Quote:
There's nothing "accurate" about my computation by design. Deliberate overestimate. That applies to the Ideal Gas Law as well. I know my numbers are high, but it doesn't matter. The real effects of the gas, not contained in my model, make my hypothesis even more likely.
I was asking for the temperature that you apply to your model for it to conform to the ideal gas law. Do you have that by chance?


Quote:
Don't have to. Ignite it any way you like. There's still a huge energy surplus.
And how that energy is released is the major point. If I have a pool of jet fuel/kerosene and ignite it, it doesn’t explode. Hell if that were the case kerosene heaters would be the preferred method of home owner insurance fraud!

Quote:
You really don't understand modeling at all, do you?
I understand modeling very well, thank you. I have an issue translating the model to reality to support your argument. You’ve shown that to be the case in your early comment reflecting reality with regards to your model.

Quote:
What you wrote here makes no sense at all. 290 kg of jet fuel is proven to contain more energy than is needed to cause the destruction in the basement. Period. It never becomes an underestimate. I guess that strawman is a quadruplet?
How is that energy released when compared to TNT?


Quote:
Redistribute it any way you like. My model is still an overestimate.
That is the point. See next comment.
Quote:
Ah, there's that "pooling" strawman again.
Jet fuel all ignited at once or jet fuel dispersed over a large area and dozens of floors. Which does NIST subscribe to? And which one is your model based upon.
Your model doesn't disperse the fuel. It places it in the middle, suspended in air, of an empty cube. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Quote:
OK, you've reached a new depth of silliness. This reminds me of Killtown when I had to explain what "volatility" and "aerosol" meant.
If you have a tank of diesel fuel, it will burn, not explode. Sure. Everyone knows this. This is because the fuel isn't aereated, and there's relatively little vapor. You have to expose it to air, preferably as a fine mist, and then it will jolly well explode.
See below for that aerrated issue.
Quote:
Are you honestly trying to tell me, with a straight face, that jet fuel that gets smashed through a building at 450 MPH or more, then pours down about 900 feet of elevator shaft, then -- just in case there's anything bigger than a droplet left -- splatters around the hard surfaces of an elevator shaft, is not aereated??
No, what I'm saying is there is a precise fuel vapor/air ratio that needs to be met before an explosion takes place. You ignore this.
For jet fuel A, the lower explosive limit is 0.7%, the upper explosive limit is 5%, therefore in order for a fuel air explosion to have occurred in the WTC elevator shafts or basement for that matter, there had to have been a mixture of no less then 0.7% fuel, and no more than 5% fuel to air ratio. Any ratio outside of these limits and a fuel air mixture would not ignite and no explosion. Hence the other article I linked to below from a jet fuel expert.
But what we do have are the presence of a fireball that doesn't create the structural damage associated with a high blast event via explosive devices.

Quote:
That's your theory now?
Nope. That is you ignoring the data required to have a jet fuel pool explosion.

Quote:
Ack! The strawman returns! I am not claiming that "large pool" of jet fuel ignited. At no time does it recoalesce and lose its oxygenation.
Your model depends upon the fuel igniting all at once, all in volume. No straw. What would you prefer to call your jet fuel in volume in one finite area? A puddle?

Quote:
And over 70% of witnesses interviewed from the whole ruddy tower smelled jet fuel. That's thousands of witnesses. If they can smell it, that means it's been aerosolized. And that means it can explode.
Wrong of course. That goes back to the vapor/air ratio thing I mentioned.
I smell cookies, so therefore cookies must be in sight? Wrong.
Quote:
What I have no need to provide is any detail regarding the extent or location of damage. Once again, my approach guarantees there is plenty of energy. Plenty of air, too. It's totally feasible
.
Too much air, no explosion. Too little air, no explosion.

Quote:
"Ideal Explosive," huh. You're in my field, now, and even further out of yours. Let me give you some of the correct verbiage. You might learn something. The words you're looking for are "Deflagration" and "Detonation." This refers to the speed of the combustion wave in the reacting material. If that speed is lower than the local speed of sound, then it's a deflagration. This is significant because if the reaction speed exceeds the speed of sound, the blast front is discontinuous in pressure, i.e. a shock wave is created. A deflagration, on the other hand, has a measurable rise time between the beginning and maximum overpressure, usually in a few milliseconds. The rise time changes the effective impulse of the blast, and so it is sometimes possible to destroy things through a detonation that would survive a higher overpressure in a deflagration.
So was I wrong or right by calling TNT an "ideal explosive" and jet fuel "non-ideal" explosive because of how the energy is released?

Quote:
Jet fuel actually can detonate, but usually deflagrates. This is determined by the Rankine-Hugoniot relationship, which is far outside your understanding so I will leave it at that. However, my calculation doesn't care whether it's a detonation or deflagration. The fact that no occupant was killed by blast pretty much ices it as a deflagration. There are no high explosives that deflagrate, by definition, therefore it was not caused by explosives. Period.
You keep ignoring at what point and under what conditions jet fuel detonates.
Two apparently people were killed by the blast:


Quote:
Reading comprehension again. My explosion does more damage, is more energetic, but affects a wider area. Its peak overpressure is lower, as is its pressure-impulse on objects close by, as compared to the truck bomb. But it affects a much wider area. You're thinking about this in only one dimension, and that won't work.
Well I see I have to prove you wrong again. Nobody was killed eh? Lets examine what Phillip Morrellis has to say about that:
“And then all of a sudden it happened all over again. Building Two got hit. I don't know that. I just know something else hit us to the floor. Right in the basement you felt it. The walls were caving in. Everything that was going on. I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got re-constructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face.”
You know injuries consistent with concussion and incident overpressure not burns from fire.
Not only that, based upon the 'detonation' of the impact and the energy released, (a portion of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel) there should be no survivors on the impacted floors, but alas we have Mr. Stanley harrowing tale of survival.
Quote:

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying that, in order to do the damage seen in 2001 -- since it affected a wider area -- if it was explosives, it would have to be more explosives than were used in 1993. It's very simple to understand.
An what point are you equating the damage in 2001 with the damage (which you have never described in this discussion for some reason) with 1993?

Quote:
1. The "bomb" in 2001 affected a larger area than the bomb in 1993.
Source?

Quote:
2. If the "bomb" in 2001 was, in fact, a bomb, it would have to be larger than the one in 1993.
Source? It would not have to be larger. You lack of explosive ordinance is shining through.

Quote:
3. This larger bomb would have killed many people outright due to blast.
You leave out everything in between the blast itself and the victims. Most if not all people in 1993 were believed to have died from a wall collapsing, not from the blast. But you do have burned victims from the 1993 bomb blast much like the blast in 2001.
Quote:
4. This did not happen. Therefore we need another explanation.
Rjected due to 1,2,3.

Quote:
5. Jet fuel deflagration would affect a larger area, but would also be less lethal in terms of blast.
You have now just described a difference in the energy release, via the lethality of the blast.
So now your saying jet fuel creates a different blast than tnt? This is exactly what I was pointing out in the above parts. Thanks for clarifying the difference in the way the potential stored energy is released.
Quote:
6. Therefore, a "bomb" similar to the 1993 event is ruled out. Deflagration is still a viable candidate.
6 is rejected due to the above points, deflagration is a viable candidate for fireball or balls in 3 of the elevator shafts, but deflagration for blast damage is ruled out as a cause of structure damage away from elevator shafts.


Quote:
Once again, no "pools" are needed. Even Willie Rodriguez reported smelling jet fuel. The witnesses are all on my side, Swing
.
Do you smell those cookies again? Now all you are missing is seeing the actual jet fuel prior to ignition caused the blast damage in the basement levels...even a cave in 200 feet away from the nearest shaft!

Quote:

As discussed above, this would be utterly capricious, inefficient, and self-inconsistent. Hardly the work of master conspirators. Your imagination runs wild, but runs poorly.

Quote:
1. Not at all. You merely fail to understand the NIST Report.
I understand it just fine. I have a problem when people like yourself who claim to be an expert on the report quote it incorrectly as pointed out above.
Quote:
2. Indeed I do, and this is not secret. Try reading what I write sometime.
I do. That offer still stands on the peer-review of your own paper.
Quote:
3. Many people recognize errors in NIST. This doesn't in any way affect the unavoidable conclusion that what we saw was due to aircraft impact, and aircraft impact alone.
Now your back to global collapse again! Stay on topic!
4. Nope. You simply can't understand even a simple derivation.
Quote:
5. Nope. And please learn the following words: detonate, deflagrate, low explosive, high explosive, brisance, shock wave, pressure wave, and sound speed.
Oh I'm quite aware of those words. I'm also aware that you applied the same characteristics and processes to jet fuel as you did to TNT.
Quote:
6. Very little structural damage, yes. Perfectly ordinary. Kind of like the difference between FAEs and conventional bombs. Actually, almost exactly like that.
But yet no one was fighting fires in the basement were they? But yet many accounts of structural damage not commonly associated with a fireball.

Quote:
7. Nope. Read more closely. I just don't need the detail to run that calculation. By the way, if you ever find a witness that saw a truck bomb and hasn't changed his story eleven times, then I might begin to take you seriously.
Sure you do. You stated above that jet fuel is less lethal in terms of blast than a bomb. We agree!
That goes back to the difference in energy release of course. Something you seem to have avoided. Those truck bombs aren't made to withstand their own detonation and the collapse of 3 buildings to provide that empirical evidence you seek.

Quote:
Point of interest: The fuel explosion in my model is only 1% of the jet fuel available. If it was somehow possible to trigger all of the jet fuel inside a WTC Tower as an optimal fuel-air explosion, the total energy release
would be an amazing 1.25TJ, or equivalent to 290,000 pounds of TNT. Naturally, it's nearly impossible to set off such a massive and complex FAE, but if it was done, the entire Tower would be blasted to pieces, instantly. Lots of energy in that jet fuel.
And for the finale….it is nearly impossible to set off a massive and complex FAE, but according to RMackey’s world, the nearly impossible was indeed achieved by a much more complex and smaller FAE in the basement! Classic!
Your theory:
1. Lots of jet fuel after a massive plane crash...
2. Makes it way to the basement all at once, in one volume, undetected...and
3. Happens to have the necessary fuel/air ratio to detonate...
4. To cause damage in specific areas on multiple levels not necessarily in the vicinity of the shafts...
5. ...twice....

Rmackey, you sir are my new Professor of Contradictions and Impossibilities.
Stick to rockets because you would be laughed out of the classroom.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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 3rd December 2007, 12:05 PM   #96
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
3. Happens to have the necessary fuel/air ratio to detonate...
We are talking about deflagration not detonations here Swing Dangler, and so we have all the way. A deflagration is more than enough to generate the necessary pressure to knock down some drywalls or masonry block walls. From Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn, Ret:

Quote:
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
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 3rd December 2007, 12:53 PM   #97
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
Swing:

Deflagration.

DEFLAGRATION.

D-E-F-L-A-G-R-A-T-I-O-N.

For comaprison:

Detonation.

DETONATION

D-E-T-O-N-A-T-I-O-N.

Notice the difference? I believe you were speaking of straw...of course, that's giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you actually understand something about explosives.

So, are you ignorant (lacking knowledge of the difference between detonation and deflagration, as well as general knowledge of explosives and flammables) or dishonest (intentionally misrepresenting the arguments against you in order to try and discredit those who have countered your arguments)? Or both?
Hellbound 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 3rd December 2007, 12:58 PM   #98
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
I vote both.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch 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 3rd December 2007, 01:02 PM   #99
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
And for the finale….it is nearly impossible to set off a massive and complex FAE,
And you base that absurd statement on what?

Quote:
but according to RMackey’s world, the nearly impossible was indeed achieved by a much more complex and smaller FAE in the basement!
Happens all the time. It's usually referred to as a "backdraft."

Quote:
1. Lots of jet fuel after a massive plane crash...
2. Makes it way to the basement all at once, in one volume, undetected...and
3. Happens to have the necessary fuel/air ratio to detonate...
4. To cause damage in specific areas on multiple levels not necessarily in the vicinity of the shafts...
5. ...twice...
Considering that the fuel did not have to stay in specific shafts, but could spread between several, it is logical that the would be explosions in more than one location. The vapor in a particular shaft would quite likely have been too oxygen-deprived to ignite on one floor, but may have suddenly gained enough air to deflagrate on another.

Of course, you are assuming that all available fuel would have been consumed in one big WHOOF! Such is not always the case.

Did you know that, if your fuel mixture is too rich, it is possible to set fire to the exhaust from your automobile?

Last edited by leftysergeant; 3rd December 2007 at 01:03 PM. Reason: to correct typos
leftysergeant 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 3rd December 2007, 01:21 PM   #100
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
lefty:

To be fair, a backdraft is not an FAE, and FAE's are hard to get set off properly: i.e.-explosively. You do need a very specific range of fuel to air ratios (depends on what fuel you use).

They are easy to set off as deflagrations, though...which is comaprable to your backdraft.

The problem is Swingy conflating the two seperate methods of reaction: explosive/detonation versus combustive/deflagration. A detonation would still have a produced a major pressure wave, with a huge amount of blast injuries and a lot of structural damage (FAEs are the weapon of choice for taking out non-hardended structures-they're good at it). The damage and injuries are more consistent with a deflagration, like when you light a puddle of gasoline on a hot day after you let it sit for half a minute (only a few hundred times more intense ).

Last edited by Hellbound; 3rd December 2007 at 01:22 PM.
Hellbound 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 3rd December 2007, 01:31 PM   #101
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,077
So Swing quotes one of the longest posts in the history of the world, mentions only one point at the very end, manages to totally screw up his objection.

Nice.

What a maroon.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 3rd December 2007 at 02:58 PM.
The Big Dog 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 3rd December 2007, 01:41 PM   #102
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
16.5:

Actually, some of that stuff in the quote box is Swing's words. He still doesn't understand how the quote function works.

So typically I skim over the post, noting only the mistakes that immediately jump out, and throw his ignorance back (it's not hard to find). THe major issue here (as with the majority of his arguments) is that he doesn't understand what's been said to him, so instead of asking for clarification or doing (*gasp!*) research to correct this deficiency, he simply chooses an argument he does understand and has been Troofer-Trained to contradict and assumes it's the one that was made.

He's like that old vending machine at the little corner market. Sure, you may want Coca-Cola, but you're just as likely to find the only buttons on the machine are for Orange Crush or RC.

Last edited by Hellbound; 3rd December 2007 at 01:59 PM. Reason: Improve the analogy
Hellbound 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 3rd December 2007, 02:23 PM   #103
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,929
I cant believe SD mentioned Jack Kelley as his FBI theory source. Beyond silly. He lied and you believed it as gospel.

The idiot made it up and I believe it was on 912 he was interviewed.

Oh, dear foot in mouth again SD
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 3rd December 2007, 02:47 PM   #104
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Deflagration Versus FAE detonation

To illustrate the difference between a deflagration and a FAE detonation:

First a backdraft. (Skip almost to the end)
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


Then a FAE detonation
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


Notice that the backdraft produces a far more impressive fireball than the FAE detonation, but it did not hurt the firefighters standing close to it. While the fireball in the FAE video did not even touch the mannequin figure it was still shredded to pieces by the supersonic shock wave (don't be confused by the thermal image). A human standing where the figure stood would have been dead!

People got burned by the fireballs in WTC, had it been a FAE or some other high explosive they would have died instantly. And there would have been lots and lost of people with destroyed eardrums and ringing ears.
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 3rd December 2007, 02:56 PM   #105
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
Excellent examples, Norseman!
Hellbound 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 3rd December 2007, 03:02 PM   #106
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
Thank you Norseman! That was cool!
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch 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 3rd December 2007, 03:23 PM   #107
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
I cant believe SD mentioned Jack Kelley as his FBI theory source. Beyond silly. He lied and you believed it as gospel.

The idiot made it up and I believe it was on 912 he was interviewed.

Oh, dear foot in mouth again SD
How do you expect a truther to figure out things; they are stuck open loop loony tunes on 9/11. They do not stop to correct lies and errors, they just press on to the next big lie.
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 4th December 2007, 08:54 PM   #108
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
you state that NIST reports multiple fireballs. [...] Here we see that NIST does state a fireball traveled down the shaft. No jet fuel, no multiple fireballs, but just one fireball. [...]
Here is your quote from a previous comment supporting the fireball.
“R.Mackey -Anti-falling devices notwithstanding, there were lifts that did fall. I wouldn't have suggested this otherwise. The huge fireball in the sublevels cited by William Rodriguez did, in fact, issue from a freight elevator shaft after the elevator fell due to the impacts.”

Again, you contradict yourself, this time with your own words!
That's a lie. Nowhere did I, and nowhere did NIST, suggest that these were all caused by a single fireball. Each of those events was distinct. Mr. Rodriguez only saw one fireball, but you can't seriously suggest that he must have seen every fireball.

This isn't your only lie, either:

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Your theory based upon your own model is of course that at least 100 gallons of jet fuel made its way un-detected, un-ignited to the basement, pooled there,
There's another lie. I expressly told you that I wasn't treating a "pool" in my last post. You cling to this because it's the only way you can possibly misinterpret me, and thus pretend that you might somehow be right.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Don't forget, according to your model, you need that jet fuel to make its way to the basement undeterred to be ignited all at once. It also has to bypass everything that might ignite it on the way down and it has to do it undetected.
Your model or theory has the jet fuel pooling.
Pack of lies. For goodness sake, man, it's on the same page as this post! Just scroll up and read!

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Your model assumes the exact fuel vapor/air ratio is correct as well.
Lie. Well, maybe breathtaking incompetence, but since I already addressed this, I'm comfortable calling this a lie.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Your model doesn't disperse the fuel. It places it in the middle, suspended in air, of an empty cube.
This is how I know you're lying. Since when do "pools" get suspended in mid-air?? Even when you butcher my words, you can't tell the same lie twice.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
[Morellis quote] "I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got re-constructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face.”
You know injuries consistent with concussion and incident overpressure not burns from fire.
Lie. They were killed by stuff falling and collapsing, not overpressure. Even the quote that you brought to the discussion suggests as much.

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
And for the finale….it is nearly impossible to set off a massive and complex FAE, but according to RMackey’s world, the nearly impossible was indeed achieved by a much more complex and smaller FAE in the basement! Classic!
Lie

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Your theory:
1. Lots of jet fuel after a massive plane crash...
2. Makes it way to the basement all at once, in one volume, undetected
Lie

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Rmackey, you sir are my new Professor of Contradictions and Impossibilities.
Stick to rockets because you would be laughed out of the classroom.
I have been a teacher, and one stupid student's laughter troubleth me not.

That's eight lies in one post. The rest of what you wrote is merely ignorant or foolish.

I'm not going to waste much more breath on you if you're simply going to prevaricate with every post. Fix your eight lies above, and if you do so, I'll try to help you through the rest of your confusion. But if you do not, then I see no point in further humoring a charlatan. Anyone can make up nonsense. You're hardly special in that regard.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2007, 01:59 AM   #109
hard lines
Student
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by leftysergeant
"We aren't saying that the fuel pooled, you are saying that we said it. We are not that stupid."
Ooops....
Quote:
Firefighter Timothy Brown: We finally set up -- prior to this I believe it was the west side of the core of the building there were elevators. Someone had come to me and said that there were people trapped in one of those elevators. So I ran around the corner, and the hoist way doors were open, but the elevator car was only showing about two feet at the top of the door. You could see all the legs of the people that were in the elevator. I would guess there were about eight people in the elevator. The elevator pit was on fire with the jet fuel. People were screaming in the elevator. They were getting smoked and cooked. There weren't a lot of firemen there at the time. I grabbed some of the Port Authority employees and asked them where the fire extinguishers were and told them to get as many fire extinguishers as they could so we could try and fight this fire. As they were doing that, firemen started showing up, and I started asking them to get big cans, let's try to put this fire out.
source

Originally Posted by leftysergeant
"We aren't saying that the fuel pooled, you are saying that we said it. We are not that stupid."
Ooops....
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
Ok, let me get this straight. The plane crashes, spills jet fuel all the way down Shaft 50 without it igniting into a fireball. Mr. Arturo whose elevator car's emergency breaks save his life experiences none of this jet fuel cascading down his shaft collecting in the bottom nor do anyone else in the basement witness or describe pools of jet fuel.
source

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
If he was in the elevator car, and the jet fuel went round its outside, what would he notice? If the jet fuel collected in the elevator shaft wells, who would be there to observe it?
source

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
False choice fallacy.



Your opening statement describes what I think happened to create the
fireball that Rodriguez reported. That doesn't mean there was only one. Do
you have any idea of how much jet fuel total there was in the building?? Or
how many paths there were from point of impact to the bottom?
source

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
Just out of interest, is the following a possible scenario?



(1) Plane hits tower, fuel deflagrates.

(2) Due to oxygen exhaustion inside the tower, some fuel remains unburned,
particularly close to the centre where the lift shafts are.

(Combustion continues around the outside of the floor because of the air
supply through the windows broken by the initial deflagration.)

(3) Some of the unburned fuel falls into the lift shaft and falls to the
bottom, passing around the lift. At this point it isn't burning because it
was extinguished by (2).

(4) Some other event (electrical spark? falling burning debris?) then ignites the fuel at the bottom of the lift shaft (where there is now enough oxygen to support combustion), causing a fireball.



Since (4) isn't necessarily directly related to (3), it could take place
some significant time later. Since the fuel doesn't travel down the lift
shaft as a fireball, the fireball can precede the fall of the lift.
Everyone's account is corroborated.



Any problems with that, anyone?



Dave
source

Apparently, nobody had any problems with that.

Quote:
Sounds good to me, but I can hear Swing already, "Source? Evidence?" Of course, his lack of evidence for bombs hasn't deterred him.
source

With regards to Mackey's "wild over estimate" energy calculation, according to him, in reality if we have just 290Kg of jet fuel, the fuel explosion would not be efficient and it would not consume the total 290Kg at once. According to Mackey's calculation, an explosion required to produce this "wild over estimate" of 5psi, would need to consume all 290Kg at once.
So, if R.Mackey's 290Kg of jet fuel figure is not consumed in the one explosion, any amount of fuel consumed less than 290Kg in an explosion would
produce less than his so called "wild over estimate" of 5 psi.

Going by Norseman's posted figures,
Quote:
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
Even if in reality 290Kg of jet fuel in the basement could produce 5psi, does that appear to be a "wild over estimate"? Even if we accept the minimalistic estimates of damage to the lower levels put forward by many here. Their is no denying the glass was shattered, and I think it's safe to say the lobby plate glass was far from your average glass.

There can be more energy in a bunch of candles, than their can be in a hand grenade, but of course a bunch of candles are not going to blow you to pieces anytime soon.
So its important to look at not only how much energy is contained within a substance, but also how that energy is released. Perhaps R.Mackey would like to apply his energy calculation to the figures NIST gave us for the initial deflageration upon impact on the towers?
The impact explosion consumed 1000-3000 gallons of fuel. 1 gallons equals 3 kg (rounded down). 3000 kg containing an energy of 129 giga joules. 3000 gallons equals then 387 giga joules. The average therfore is 258 gj, that's twenty times the amount of the energy released by the 290kg R.Mackey thinks is sufficient to explain all the damage.

One has to wonder, how such a great release of energy, produced, according to official reports, - no great overpressures. The reason is of course that not all the energy was released at once, but as FEMA states within two seconds and not in microseconds. So we have here 1000-3000 gallons of aerolized fuel exploding in a deflagration, producing no significant pressure wave, and one tenth to one thirtieth of that, produced pressure reducing walls of several basement levels to rubble within seconds of the impact. How did 100% of the people on floor 91 of the north tower, survive? The floor below the lowest point of impact where above a 1000-3000 deflageration took place.

In R.Mackey's model, 290Kg of fuel in the form of gas, explodes all at once. Although R.Mackey has told us plenty of times there was enough air, he neglects to mention that unless all of this 290Kg of jet fuel had a fuel air ratio of .7 to 5% then, not all of it will burn at once. Again, if less than 290Kg of fuel burns at once, we get less than 5psi in R.Mackey's model. Hardly a "wild over estimate".

All this nonsense above, trying to pin Swing Dangler on a unintentional, detonation comment, is irrelevant. If we are talking about igniting a fuel/air mixture, the mixture must be between the lower and upper explosive limits. Fuel alone does not burn, when a pool of fuel is on fire, it is the top vapour (fuel/air) layer that is burning. Your example leftysergeant, of your fuel/air mixture being too rich in your car, is simply when the mixture is too rich to ignite in the cylinder of the engine. The unburnt fuel is expelled through the exhaust, and later ignites in the exhaust when the fuel can mix with air.

As R.Mackey has mentioned, it's unlikely the fuel burned all at once, we also
know through various accounts their were numerous explosions/fireballs.

According to Arturo Griffith, he experienced 2 explosions after stopping, blowing the elevator doors in.

Quote:
When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion (1) 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 (2) 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, and they say that they was trying to get my attention and they didn't get no response from me.
source

Arturo shared the elevator car with Marlene Cruz, after the 2 were rescued
from the car, Arturo witnessed a fireball emerge from the shaft.

Quote:
'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft (3). They almost got killed.'
source

So we already have 3 possible explosions/fireballs

What about the account of Edward McCabe?

Quote:
I was in the refrigeration plant in tower 1 sub basement 4. I was passing through when I felt a slight shifting of the building. I froze right where I stood and listened....nothing.. about 30 seconds past and to my left about 30 feet from me was a stairway leading up to a door. this door explodes off its hinges and white smoke came into the plant.
source

After the plane impact, Arturo Griffith plummets in an elevator then
experiences 2 explosions, does not respond, is rescued, tells the rescuers to get Cruz, then Cruz is rescued.
Their is a significant amount of time after the initial explosions, then Arturo witnesses a fireball which does not appear to have created significant over pressure.

After the plane impact?, an estimated 30 seconds later Edward McCabe witnesses a door blown of it's hinges on the perimeter of the WTC.

Due to the timing, the damage caused by the explosion McCabe witnesses, and also the lack of pressure from the fireball Arturo witnesses, it is unlikely this fireball witnessed by Arturo, caused the explosion witnessed by McCabe.

If McCabe's account is accurate, and we only have the official story to work with, this explosion must have come from shafts 6 and 7.

Due to the location of shafts 6 and 7, it seems unlikely that the first and most explosive blast would originate from shafts 6 and 7. See NIST's fuel
distribution figures, note that shafts 6 and 7 are to the right of the red line, and were less affected by jet fuel than shaft 50.


R.Mackey tells us,
Quote:
And over 70% of witnesses interviewed from the whole ruddy tower smelled jet fuel. That's thousands of witnesses. If they can smell it, that means it's been aerosolized. And that means it can explode.
Actually thats far from correct, otherwise the next time I lite a cigarette within a km of the airport, I'm going to do some damage. A human can smell fuel at as low as 1 part per million, for a jet fuel/air mixture to ignite, we need to be in a range between 7000ppm to 50000ppm. Any attempted ignition outside of this range, and the mixture will either be too lean or too rich to ignite.

Quote:
Hazardous exposure levels came into effect in 2003.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) lists the threshold limit values (TLVs) for jet fuel as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 200 mg/m3 (total aerosol and vapor). This converts to approximately 30 parts per million (ppm) when expressed in isobutylene units.
source

We are talking about Griffith being in an elevator, with a fuel air mixture surrounding him, of between 233 to 1666 times higher than the above set hazardous exposure levels, yet Griffith does not find this significant enough for any mention? And in the very least, is not overcome by fumes?

It is impossible that Arturo & Cruz would not have noticed significant amounts of liquid fuel cascading in, and around, his open car. It is also near impossible that Arturo & Cruz would not have noticed a significant amount of fuel vapour forming in and around his car.

Given the above, it would appear the jet fuel did not reach the lower levels until a short time after Griffith and Cruz were out of the shaft. Given the location of shafts 6, 7, and 50, and NIST's jet fuel distribution figures, it would be reasonable to assume that the fuel did not reach the lower levels of shafts 6 and 7 until around the same time, or later than it did shaft 50. For this reason, it's unlikely the initial explosions Arturo experienced, originated from shaft 6 & 7.

Furthermore, if the "new jref hypothesis" is that the fuel was formed into an aerosol as it fell down the shafts, then why was the damage so localised to the lower levels and not up the length of the shaft?
Why an exploded shaft of floor 22, when the surrounding floors were undamaged?

With regards to overpressure estimates, Mackey says,

Quote:
We can describe the damage qualitatively:

a.. There was extensive damage to interior and furniture over a wide area.
b.. Damage to the structure, however, was minor to negligible.
c.. There are no reports of anyone being killed by the blast. The
principal danger was fire.
Their are plenty of reports of people killed in the basement, there is no evidence they weren't killed by the blast as R.Mackey claims.

Here is one from the lobby,

Quote:
"There was one body inside the lobby. Looked like his legs were chopped off. I don't know where he came from, but he had already had a triage tag on him. It was a civilian. 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."
source

I think it's safe to say this guy didn't die from burns.

And minor structural damage?

It seems now accepted by everyone except for gravy that in order for McCabe's account to be correct that 3 walls and a door were blown off between McCabe and the 6 and 7 shafts. I've given my reasons why I believe this coridoor would have been masonry, and am trying to confirm this. It seems that the knee jerk reaction on jref is to minimize damage and claim everything was light weight plasterboard. Hardly sceptical.

And how much force would be required to break through one of the plasterboard elevator shaft walls?

We only have to read the account of Perrito Blanco.
Quote:
"Then I smelled smoke. This changed things. We had to get out. I got out my handkerchief and covered my nose and mouth. Then I remembered that it was better to wet it so I dipped it in my milk. I suggested to the others to do the same. We pried open the doors again and laid down the window-washer's pole to keep the door open. It was the perfect size. Now we started kicking the hell out of the wall in front of us. It was no use. It was sheetrock, a.k.a. plasterboard or drywall, in 2 feet wide sections with a steel frame around it. It hardly moved. We would have to dig through it."

""Eventually, someone got through the wall. We now had a hole about the diameter of a finger and fresh air was coming through. The elevator shaft
wall turned out to be 3 inches thick. It consisted of 3 ply of one inch sheetrock held together by the steel frame I mentioned. We continued to chip away and kick at the wall. Then I noticed John the window-washer was holding a piece of the squeegee that had come off. It was the part where the pole screwed in. It was triangular with 2 pointy corners and the corner where the pole screwed in. I grabbed it and started hacking to one side of the hole and another guy worked on the other side. Then I got the idea to try and score the wall so that when we kicked at it, there would be weak points. As we took turns kicking the wall, my foot finally went through and we had a nice sized hole now. We took turns kicking at the edges of the hole making it bigger. Eventually, we had a hole about 2-3 feet high by 1 foot wide. But there was another wall on the other side. "
source

Here's an interesting quote that puts the damaged structure at a little more than a few pesky pieces of broken plaster board.

Quote:
"When the group reached the third floor, rescuers told them to be careful of the water. The sprinkler systems had been activated and gone haywire. Water was flowing out underneath the door into the stairwell and there weren't any safety strips on the painted steel stairs.

""When I got to the bottom, where the subway ran through the building, there
was five inches of water on the floor," she said.

"Rescuers told Colfer and the others they were going to open a set of doors
and then guide them through.

""They threw open the doors and it was dark, but you saw one small light,"
she said.

"Once her eyes were acclimated to the darkness, she saw concrete slabs where the walls were on the floor and that the concrete ceiling above had
collapsed.

""It was like a bomb had exploded," she said. "I thought, this structure has
this much damage and I'm on the bottom. What does the rest of the building
look like?"
source

Last edited by hard lines; 5th December 2007 at 03:41 AM. Reason: fix format error
hard lines 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 5th December 2007, 02:32 AM   #110
hard lines
Student
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37
Finally, perhaps someone here would like to attempt to tell me why local elevator bank A appears to have 5 out of 6 of its doors blown off?

We find the evidence here in this quote,

Quote:
We get into the lobby of the north tower and the first elevator bank, there was one elevator out of the six that still had the lights on, but they couldn?t get it to work. Meanwhile, all the other elevators were blown off their doors. So we tried the next elevator bank of six and they finally got one that worked to the 24th floor. I think it was captain of 21 he went up to check. He went up and he came back down. He went up with his guys and someone from the truck took the elevator. And then the other engine went up in the next load, 22, and on the load after that, the truck was going up. They wanted one of our guys to run the elevators since there was only one truck, so I gave the control radio to Fireman Louie Cacchioli.
source

First lets look at the lobby


The locations of the elevator banks A,B,C and D i've added, are correct to the floorplans.

In the quote, we hear that when firefighter Lieutenant Bill Wall first enters the north tower, they tried an elevator in the first bank. Only one of the elevators still had its lights on, the rest had their doors blown off. This quote is excellent, because we know that Lieutenant Bill Wall is referring to a local elevator bank, not any of the express elevators or freight elevators. We know this because Lieutenant Bill tells us the bank he is referring to has 6 elevators in its bank, and this could only mean a local bank. He also then tells us he tries the next elevator bank of 6, a bank which they were able to find a working elevator, which took them as high as the 24th floor.

By looking at the local elevator elevations, we see that just one local bank had a top floor of floor 24.
That bank is bank B.


So we know that the elevator Lieutenant Bill Wall took up to the 24th floor was located within bank B. This also means that the first bank that Lieutenant Bill describes as having all elevator doors blown off except for just 1 shaft, had to of been bank A.
Because in order for bank B to have been the next bank after the first bank, this could only mean the first bank was bank A.

From Lieutenant Bill Wall's detailed account, it is clear that upon entering the north tower lobby, Lieutenant Bill entered the core of the building from the east. First trying a local elevator in bank A, then finding a working elevator in bank B.

So tell me debunkers, how does jet fuel find its way into bank A?
A bank of local elevators which only serviced up to floor 16, and then on floor 19 became floorspace for toilets.
A bank which was nowehere near the only 3 elevator shafts which had continuity from the impact zone to the lower levels.

Here we see a poor quality screenshot taken from the east of the core, looking west.


Local elevator bank A is located in the first opening closest to us on the right hand side. It is where the man in the yellow shirt appears to be emerging from.

Note that this area does not appear to be burnt.

If the account of Lieutenant Bill Wall is correct, then the screenshot shows where Lieutenant Bill would have entered the core area.

Debunkers often say, explosives do not produce significant flame, and the burnt area we see within the centre of the core, would not have been produced by explosives.
Ok, we know that it was possible for a jet fuel fireball to emerge from shafts 6, 7, or 50, it's also possible that this fuel fireball was what caused the burnt walls and ceiling shown in the screenshot, as the centre of the core is where shafts 6, 7, and 50 were located.

Lieutenant Bill Wall tells us bank A had 5 out of 6 of its elevator doors blown off. Their appears to be no burnt walls or ceiling around elevator bank A.

Do the debunkers have this right?

The centre of the core area, where quite possibly burning jet fuel emerged, is black and charred. Elevator bank A, where Lieutenant Bill witnesses blown elevators, remains unburnt. Unburnt just like the rest of the lobby we see in the Naudet-brother documentary, marble panels removed, blown plate glass windows, and fine dust.

Besides the fact that jet fuel cannot explain the damage to elevator bank A, the screenshot of the core further backs up the evidence that the fuel fireball, and the explosions were 2 seperate events.

In one damaged area we see charred walls and ceiling, in another damaged area we see none. Therefore, it's unlikely the damage in the seperate areas, was caused by the same phenomena.

Does anyone else corroborate the account of Lieutenant Bill Wall, that elevator bank A was damaged?

Perhaps, but Lieutenant Bill's account was much more descriptive than most.
Here are just a few accounts that could be describing the same damage.

Quote:
[Walsh:] What else I observed in the lobby was that -- there's basically two areas of elevators. There's elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That would be the elevators that's facing north. Then on the right-hand side there's also elevators that are express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That's where the service elevator was also.

[B.C. Congiusta:] Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren't side lobby elevators?

[Walsh:] No, no, I'd say that they went through floors 30 and below.

[B.C. Congiusta:] And they were blown off?

[Walsh:] They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me from what I could see, the doors anyway.
source
Note, Walsh is describing the local elevators within the core.

Quote:
Tom Canavan:
"We got down to the first floor, and where the steps led out was in between the elevator banks in the lobby, of one world trade, on the concourse. Big security guard just standing there pointing, pointing east, saying just go.
And i remember looking around and all the elevator doors were almost knocked off, they were all crooked. So we made the turn, we went through the turnstyle, at that point we could see the concourse level, through the doors. All the lights were out, but the sprinklers were on. All of the glass in all of the windows and doors were shattered."
source
Note, Canavan comes out of stairway B, which is in the centre of the core. He turns to the east to exit, this means he passes elevator bank A, and is possibly describing them.

Quote:
Firefighter Peter Fallucca: Before we got in, all the elevators were crashed down in the lobby, and we were going to the stairwell. See all the elevators were crashed down, big slabs of marble on the floor, all the ceiling tiles of the dropped ceiling was falling down, wires hanging. You see wires and stuff hanging inside the elevator shafts, because the doors were blown right off the elevators. (...) There was one body inside the lobby. Looked like his legs were chopped off. I don't know where he came from, but he had already had a triage tag on him. It was a civilian. 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.“
source
Note, Fallucca is heading for the stairwell, the only stairwell in the lobby is stairway B, stairway A & C start on the concourse level. Fallucca had to pass the local elevators, and was possibly describing them.

Quote:
Firefighter William Green: We entered in through the front doors of the lobby. The lobby was screwed. All the windows were already broken. Marble walls that surrounded the elevator shaft, they were cracked and broken. I’m still thinking a bomb went off.

We headed for the B staircase. It was pretty much in the center of the core. We had to go through these turnstiles. I remember there was a lot of rubble on the floor there. There was elevator doors ajar. There were elevator doors missing. I could see an elevator car twisted in the shaft.
I remember I looked up at the ceiling because I thought maybe the ceiling got charred because there was a bunch of rubble on the floor. It was about three feet high in the middle. The ceiling wasn’t charred. So I had thought the floor blew up.
source
Note, Green is again heading for stairway B, and is possibly describing the local elevators
hard lines 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 5th December 2007, 03:56 AM   #111
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by hard lines View Post

Here's an interesting quote that puts the damaged structure at a little more than a few pesky pieces of broken plaster board.



Quote:
Quote:
"When the group reached the third floor, rescuers told them to be careful of the water. The sprinkler systems had been activated and gone haywire. Water was flowing out underneath the door into the stairwell and there weren't any safety strips on the painted steel stairs.

""When I got to the bottom, where the subway ran through the building, there
was five inches of water on the floor," she said.

"Rescuers told Colfer and the others they were going to open a set of doors
and then guide them through.

""They threw open the doors and it was dark, but you saw one small light,"
she said.

"Once her eyes were acclimated to the darkness, she saw concrete slabs where the walls were on the floor and that the concrete ceiling above had
collapsed.

""It was like a bomb had exploded," she said. "I thought, this structure has
this much damage and I'm on the bottom. What does the rest of the building
look like?"
source
[/quote]

Hard Line did you actually read this part of the article, it continues from where you stopped:
Quote:
Colfer and the others felt their way up a ramp, which brought them back up into the shopping mall level of the WTC building. At that point, the time for calm and order was over.

"We're going to throw these doors open and we want you to run!" rescuers told Colfer and the others.

"They threw open the doors and it was all this brightness and we did," she said. "We just ran."

Colfer ran as fast as she could. She wasn't out of the building five minutes when One World Trade Center collapsed.
This was taking place after WTC 2 had collapsed. The collapse of WTC 2 forced them to evacuate through the basement levels. The collapsed concrete she saw was caused by the collapse of WTC 2 on to the areas surrounding WTC 1. So your quote is useless for your purpose of fitting in some bombes.
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 5th December 2007, 04:28 AM   #112
hard lines
Student
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Norseman View Post

Hard Line did you actually read this part of the article, it continues from where you stopped:


This was taking place after WTC 2 had collapsed. The collapse of WTC 2 forced them to evacuate through the basement levels. The collapsed concrete she saw was caused by the collapse of WTC 2 on to the areas surrounding WTC 1. So your quote is useless for your purpose of fitting in some bombes.
Where did I say that this was evidence of the basement explosions?

I used the quote as an example of the basement structure.
hard lines 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 5th December 2007, 04:44 AM   #113
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,906
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Look, this line of argument is not only pointless, it's just plain bizarre.

*snip*

I will tackle the energy "questions," below.

*snip*
---

I strongly suspect this entire exercise won't change your totally unsupported and fantastical beliefs one bit, but maybe I'm wrong. Justify my optimism. Try to understand. Take all the time you need.


Posts like that is the reason I simply love this forum. And must be the reason only the most logic-impervious of truthers and other true-believers dare to venture here.

In essence,

Truther: "[assumptions, allegations, accusations, illogic inferences, cherry-picking, lies, plain nonsense]"

Person like Mackey, Gravy, Norseman, et al: "[Clear concise explanations backed by solid background knowledge, references, calculations, impeccable logic]"

Truther: "[Even more nonsense]"

The only thing that puzzles me is: Even if their belief is unswayable, they MUST be able to see how bad they are made to look?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans 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 5th December 2007, 05:25 AM   #114
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by hard lines View Post
Due to the location of shafts 6 and 7, it seems unlikely that the first and most explosive blast would originate from shafts 6 and 7. See NIST's fuel
distribution figures, note that shafts 6 and 7 are to the right of the red line, and were less affected by jet fuel than shaft 50.
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/714...stfuel1cy9.jpg
Why did you use Case A when NIST used Case B aircraft damage for WTC 1 in their global model since Case B best fitted real life results? (NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page 235)

This figure from NIST NCSTAR 1-2 (page 201) shows estimated Case B fuel distribution:


That would bring a lot more fuel across your red line, hard lines.

(The NIST reports can be found here)
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 5th December 2007, 05:28 AM   #115
hard lines
Student
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
Why did you use Case A when NIST used Case B aircraft damage for WTC 1 in their global model since Case B best fitted real life results? (NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page 235)

This figure from NIST NCSTAR 1-2 (page 201) shows estimated Case B fuel distribution:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6944418e99.jpg

That would bring a lot more fuel across your red line, hard lines.

(The NIST reports can be found here)
My point was that shaft 50 was more affected by fuel than shafts 6 & 7.
That point has not changed.
hard lines 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 5th December 2007, 05:55 AM   #116
hard lines
Student
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37
It appears that this quote,

Quote:
Firefighter Timothy Brown: We finally set up -- prior to this I believe it was the west side of the core of the building there were elevators. Someone had come to me and said that there were people trapped in one of those elevators. So I ran around the corner, and the hoist way doors were open, but the elevator car was only showing about two feet at the top of the door. You could see all the legs of the people that were in the elevator. I would guess there were about eight people in the elevator. The elevator pit was on fire with the jet fuel. People were screaming in the elevator. They were getting smoked and cooked. There weren't a lot of firemen there at the time. I grabbed some of the Port Authority employees and asked them where the fire extinguishers were and told them to get as many fire extinguishers as they could so we could try and fight this fire. As they were doing that, firemen started showing up, and I started asking them to get big cans, let's try to put this fire out.
Was not in regards to WTC 1 but WTC 2.

See here,
Quote:
FF TIMOTHY BROWN #9110458
The second plane hit. Again I did not feel that. We did not know that happened until a fireman came into the lobby and told us that another plane had hit number two, the south tower. Calvin directed me to go to the command post in the south tower to help the Fire Department with their operation there and to let him know everything that was going on. I'm not exactly sure how I got there. I remember going out through a broken window and running I believe south along the West Street side of the complex as fast as I could so I wouldn't get hit by anything. I remember running across a parking lot. It was across from the hotel, which would have been the southeast corner of Liberty an West. There's a parking lot there. It was near the pedestrian walkway and all that. [...] So I remember running across a lot of debris. I didn't have on fire gear, so I remember trying to avoid the fire as much as I could. I ran into the doors of the Two World Trade on the Liberty Street side. I saw Chief Burns inside there. He was the first fire personnel that I saw in the lobby. I asked him if there was anything I could do to help. He was like, well, it's just like -- there was nothing anybody could do except try and get people out. So we tried to encourage -- I remember seeing a six-person team from ESU in that lobby. I directed them to wait. I directed them to wait and not to go upstairs until they reported in to Chief Burns so we had some accountability of who they were and where they were going to go. They finally did communicate with Chief Burns, and then they went upstairs. Again, an orderly evacuation of two. A lot of people were leaving. We finally set up -- prior to this I believe it was the west side of the core of the building there were elevators. Someone had come to me and said that there were people trapped in one of those elevators. So I ran around the corner, and the hoist way doors were open, but the elevator car was only showing about two feet at the top of the door. You could see all the legs of the people that were in the elevator. I would guess there were about eight people in the elevator. The elevator pit was on fire with the jet fuel. People were screaming in the elevator. They were getting smoked and cooked. There weren't a lot of firemen there at the time. I grabbed some of the Port Authority employees and asked them where the fire extinguishers were and told them to get as many fire extinguishers as they could so we could try and fight this fire. As they were doing that, firemen started showing up, and I started asking them to get big cans, let's try to put this fire out.
source

What does this mean?

Swing Dangler could be correct in his statement of the WTC 1 witnesses.

Some jref members still at one point hypothesized that unburnt fuel pooled in the bottom of the shafts.

Jet fuel falling from impact zone, could have reached the pits of an elevator in liquid form.

And, gravy now has at least 2 accounts in his paper on the north tower witnesses, that are referring to the south tower.

Further to the account of Judy Colfer describing collapsed concrete walls and ceiling in the lower basement. Whilst their is no evidence that this wasn't caused by the collapse of tower 2, their is also no evidence this wasn't caused by the explosions in the basement.
Colfer tells us she exited via the subway level.
Their were witnesses to an explosion in the subway, and also this report from a PAPD officer
Quote:
transcript 10
pg 9
SEPTEMBER 11,2001
PATH - CHANNEL 021
RADIO TRAINMASTER (R2)
DURATION: 3.33 HOURS

PAPD OFFICER DESK: Police desk to 800.
PAPD OFFICER 800: (Inaudible)
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Eight hundred (Inaudible) three nine.
PAPD OFFICER 33: Three-three, desk.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Go, thirty-three.
PAPD OFFICER 33: Myself and (Inaudible) to the Trade Center responding with scott
packs to the B-4 level. There's a report of a cave-in, and people trapped.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Roger, three-three and eight-two Houston, World Trade
responding B-4 level on a report of a cave-in.
PAPD OFFICER: ESU units, do you copy?
PAPD OFFICER 33 : Three-three, desk.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Go, three-three.
PAPD OFFICER 33: There's also been a cave-in at the platform of the PATH plaza ...there's a live electrical, and water running. Turn off the power in that area.PAPD OFFICER DESK: Roger.
PAPD OFFICER TRUCK ONE: Truck one, desk.
PAPD OFFICER: Truck one, go.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Three-three is reporting that there is a cave-in, B-4 level, at
the World Trade, copy? A possibility of people trapped.
source

So it's quite possible this damage was caused before the collapse of the south tower.

But, let me guess, the cave-in in at the platform of the PATH plaza, was plasterboard?
hard lines 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 5th December 2007, 06:00 AM   #117
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by hard lines View Post
Where did I say that this was evidence of the basement explosions?

I used the quote as an example of the basement structure.
I will reluctantly give you the benefit of doubt here. But she says the concrete celling above had collapsed, and we know that the floors slabs were made of concrete. So my take is that the concrete slabs on the floor were from the ceiling, and not the walls. It was also very dark.

But I do not think you are here to just ask questions. So if you believe that the damage in the Lobby and the basement levels at the time of aircraft impact were caused by something else than deflagration of unburned jet fuel fumes/droplets traveling down the elevator shafts, please state your theory.
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 5th December 2007, 07:00 AM   #118
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by hard lines View Post
Further to the account of Judy Colfer describing collapsed concrete walls and ceiling in the lower basement. Whilst their is no evidence that this wasn't caused by the collapse of tower 2, their is also no evidence this wasn't caused by the explosions in the basement.
Colfer tells us she exited via the subway level.
Their were witnesses to an explosion in the subway, and also this report from a PAPD officer
Quote:
Quote:
transcript 10
pg 9
SEPTEMBER 11,2001
PATH - CHANNEL 021
RADIO TRAINMASTER (R2)
DURATION: 3.33 HOURS

PAPD OFFICER DESK: Police desk to 800.
PAPD OFFICER 800: (Inaudible)
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Eight hundred (Inaudible) three nine.
PAPD OFFICER 33: Three-three, desk.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Go, thirty-three.
PAPD OFFICER 33: Myself and (Inaudible) to the Trade Center responding with scott
packs to the B-4 level. There's a report of a cave-in, and people trapped.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Roger, three-three and eight-two Houston, World Trade
responding B-4 level on a report of a cave-in.
PAPD OFFICER: ESU units, do you copy?
PAPD OFFICER 33 : Three-three, desk.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Go, three-three.
PAPD OFFICER 33: There's also been a cave-in at the platform of the PATH plaza ...there's a live electrical, and water running. Turn off the power in that area.PAPD OFFICER DESK: Roger.
PAPD OFFICER TRUCK ONE: Truck one, desk.
PAPD OFFICER: Truck one, go.
PAPD OFFICER DESK: Three-three is reporting that there is a cave-in, B-4 level, at
the World Trade, copy? A possibility of people trapped.
source

So it's quite possible this damage was caused before the collapse of the south tower.

But, let me guess, the cave-in in at the platform of the PATH plaza, was plasterboard?
In the sub levels of WTC many of the walls were made of masonry blocks like the one on this page:

http://www.espionageinfo.com/Vo-Z/Wo...st-Attack.html

That includes the walls separating the footprint of WTC 1 from the rest of the basement levels and parts of the corridors inside B-4. But the elevator shafts looks as though they were made of drywall boards with facing tiles on the outside if you study the architectural drawings for that level carefully.

They were not load bearing and not reinforced.

But according to Vincent Dunn's table you only need 2-3 PSI to knock down cinderblock wall like the one in the picture above. Well within the R.Mackey's worst case scenario.
Quote:
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
So yes jet fuel deflagration could easily cave in a block wall between WTC 1 and the PATH area. But it did not collapse the wall between McCabe in the Refrigeration Plant and the interior of WTC 1 within equal distance from the elevator shafts as the PATH area.

I happened to skim through several Port Authority transcripts and police reports last night, and I do not think that the transcript you posted above is as straight forward as you assume when I look at the complete context of several transcripts and reports.

Last edited by Norseman; 5th December 2007 at 07:34 AM. Reason: Formatting and added text
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 5th December 2007, 07:16 AM   #119
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
I will take a break in posting replies to your posts hard lines. But reading your first post I strongly suggest you take another round on the difference between a deflagration and a detonation.
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 5th December 2007, 07:38 AM   #120
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,975
Actually, I'd like to see that PSI list, because I have a VERY STRONG suspiscion that the "glass shattering" bit should be 0 to 0.5 PSI, rather than 0-5. I could not, however, find any other source on a cursury search that listed specific pressures.

However, I did find an interesting article about explosive damage, here. The relevent portion is about 4/5ths of the way down the page:
Quote:

The air-blast shock wave is the primary damage mechanism in an explosion. The pressures it exerts on building surfaces may be several orders of magnitude greater than the loads for which the building is designed. The shock wave also acts in directions that the building may not have been designed for, such as upward on the floor system. In terms of sequence of response,the air-blast first impinges on the weakest point in the vicinity of the device closest to the explosion, typically the exterior envelope of the building. The explosion pushes on the exterior walls at the lower stories and may cause wall failure and window breakage. As the shock wave continues to expand, it enters the structure, pushing both upward and downward on the floors.

Floor failure is common in large-scale explosive attacks, because floor slabs typically have a large surface area for the pressure to act on and a comparably small thickness. In terms of the timing of events,the building is engulfed by the shockwave and direct air-blast damage occurs within tens to hundreds of milliseconds from the time of detonation.If progressive collapse is initiated, it typically occurs within seconds.

Glass is often the weakest part of a building,breaking at low pressures compared to other components such as the floors, walls, or columns.Past incidents have shown that glass breakage may extend for miles in large external explosions. High-velocity glass fragments have been shown to be a major contributor to injuries in such incidents. For incidents within downtown city areas,falling glass poses a major hazard to passersby on the sidewalks below and prolongs post-incident rescue and cleanup efforts by leaving tons of glass debris on the street.

Blast can cause significant casualties. During the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, 168 people were killed. Severity and type of injury patterns incurred in explosive events may be related to the level of structural damage. The high pressure of the air-blast that enters through broken windows can cause eardrum damage and lung collapse.As the air-blast damages the building components in its path, missiles are generated that cause impact injuries. Airborne glass fragments typically cause penetration or laceration-type injuries.Larger fragments may cause non-penetrating, or blunt trauma,injuries. Finally, the air-blast pressures can cause occupants to be bodily thrown against objects or to fall. Lacerations due to high-velocity flying glass fragments have been responsible for a significant portion of the injuries received in explosion incidents. In the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, for instance, 40 percent of the survivors in the building cited glass as contributing to their injuries. Within nearby buildings, laceration estimates ranged from 25 percent to 30 percent.
This just fits in perfectly with what we've been trying to explain to Swing here. The injuries sustained and the damage to the structure are NOT consistent with explosives.
Hellbound 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 01:47 PM.
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.