Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2-again, it gets back to a sealed environment of a fuel tank vs a nonsealed shaft. If it was gasoline... sure, a natural FAE is VERY likely to have happened, due to gas' volatility. But I've been around diesel all my life, and it's virtually impossible to get an explosion unless it's aerosolized in a semi "open", environment, like I'd imagine how it was in the shafts. Inside a fuel tank.... I could see it happening. I'd imagine jet fuel would be similar. Sorry, but I just don't see it happening, but you're not prevented by me from examining it further if you wish.

Thanks. I still believe it to be possible.

The amount of fuel vapor in the air above a fuel can never be greater than the saturation value. Of course, it takes time to saturate the air with fuel vapor, so the actual percentage of fuel vapor may be consid- erably below the saturation point, especially if the fuel container is open to air circulation.

JP-5 fuel does not give off enough vapor to be explosive until it is heated considerably above 100°F. However, if the JP-5 fuel is contaminated with even a small amount of gasoline or, more likely, JP-4, the amount of vapor given off increases to the point where it is in the flammable range at a much lower tempera- ture. At room temperatures, 0.1 percent gasoline or JP-4 in JP-5 results in a fuel that is unsafe to store aboard ship since it fails the flash point requirement for unprotected storage.

Because of the range of its vapor pressure, grade JP-4 forms explosive vapors from minus 10°F to plus 80°F, its normal storage and handling temperatures. This means that the space above the liquid almost always contains an explosive mixture.

www.tpub.com...

Bolding by me.

First point is that JP-5 fuel starts to be volatile above 100F. Now, I believe we are told the steel got to at least 600C. It must therefore be logical that the jet fuel was above 100F and therefore volatile.

Second point is that JP-4 fuel is always volatile and the space above the liquid "almost always contains an explosive mixture".

Now, I'm done arguing this point because I feel that it is possible and until you can show me the impossibility of it happening, and not just the improbability of it happening, I will continue to believe so.

3- I might be wrong, but it looks like you're comparing the granite to just 1 support. There would be several, right? Perhaps 8 or even greater? Any clue what size they were - 4'x 4' x 1" maybe? How heavy is that? Would just 2 such supports hold up that weight, or would there need to be more on the botom and/or thicker steel on the bottom to hold it without bending? Is comparing tensile strength of the 2 the proper way to determine the solution to this problem?

Tensile strength is the weaker between the two (compression and tension). Therefore we usually deal in the lower value as Ultimate Strength.

Therefore, whether you want to calculate compression, bending, tension, etc. etc. you will always be governed by the lowest strength. I.E. the Ultimate Strength or tensile strength.

Originally posted by Griff

1-Now, I'm done arguing this point because I feel that it is possible and until you can show me the impossibility of it happening, and not just the improbability of it happening, I will continue to believe so.

2-Tensile strength is the weaker between the two (compression and tension). Therefore we usually deal in the lower value as Ultimate Strength.

1- that's for fuel storage though Griff - in some sort of tank, iow. Believe what you want though.

2- ok. So what about the question regarding how many supports?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- that's for fuel storage though Griff - in some sort of tank, iow. Believe what you want though.

I will thanks. Again, until you can prove it to be impossible I will take it as a possibility.

2- ok. So what about the question regarding how many supports?

Drawings, details, and specifications would come in handy. Anything else is just supposition and not really worth it IMO.

Originally posted by Griff

Drawings, details, and specifications would come in handy. Anything else is just supposition and not really worth it IMO.

Oh, ok then.

So then without drawings, details, and specifications, your claim that the supports would break first is not really worth anything, IYO.

Gotcha...

The same can be said about your belief that there could have been a natural FAE then, Without an in-depth, detailed analysis of how it could have happened, then that's not worth anything either.

Why do I waste my time, when I know that I won't get any answers....

[edit on 29-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So then without drawings, details, and specifications, your claim that the supports would break first is not really worth anything, IYO.

Gotcha...

The same can be said about your belief that there could have been a natural FAE then, Without an in-depth, detailed analysis of how it could have happened, then that's not worth anything either.

In a nutshell, yes. It's all just speculation. I never said I was 100% correct in my speculations.

Why do I waste my time, when I know that I won't get any answers....

Why are you looking to me for answers? I didn't get paid millions to come up with the answers. Nor do I have access to original documentation. So my "answers" are mostly speculation.

reply to post by ANOK


Ah I see, so explosives were used in the basement then right? And here is the multi-million dollar question, for what serious purpose?
After all, everything needs a purpose because if not, then what was the point?
A jet fuel caused explosion would be the answer as survivors from the basement and ground floor all recall a large blast from the elevators with fireball and an overpowering smell of jet fuel.
Unless you expect me to believe that they used a "fuel-air" bomb, for what purpose no one knows. What the gentlemen all described was destruction and damage done from the fuel spill and explosion from the impact above. And the debris covered up your press and there you go. I don't think they expected for you to take it literally when they said, "everything was just gone". Evaporated, disappeared? No. This is what someone says when there is a lot of damage. Like when a tornado destroys a town and someone says it looks like a bomb hit.

Originally posted by Griff


Why are you looking to me for answers?

For the very reason that it is YOUR speculation.

Again, it's the scientific method. You have a decent theory. Now, you should look into disproving it, but as afr as I can tell, you have no interest in doing that. Rather, it seems like speculating is all you've got the time for.

Anyways, thx for the disappointment.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Again, it's the scientific method. You have a decent theory. Now, you should look into disproving it, but as afr as I can tell, you have no interest in doing that. Rather, it seems like speculating is all you've got the time for.

Which goes back to my main point all along. If we had access to the documentation needed, we wouldn't have to speculate.

Why should I waste my time in calculating speculation? I waste enough of it here as it is.

Originally posted by Griff

Which goes back to my main point all along. If we had access to the documentation needed, we wouldn't have to speculate.

And since we don't have access to the building docs, the next best route is to determine whather or not a natural FAE could happen in a semi-open environment like in the shafts.So you find some sources that back the idea of fuel explosions in tanks, but reject any suggestions that it is NOT the comparison you should be looking at.

It is suggested that you look into discovering out how large a TNT blast must be in order to be the sole reason for the columns reaching the WG, but reject doing that - even though I suggested that you might be surprised at the results, which you prolly took it to mean that it was absurdly high. Hint - it's not that high.

You then say that just 1 lb could have done it, but reject following up on that notion that says that if that is right, then other factors are responsible for the columns reaching the WG, and as such, any explosives of any kind contributed virtually nothing.

It is suggested that you do the TNT calcs anyway, cuz it would give a baseline dB to get an idea of just how loud it would be but that is rejected.

Then a simple question is asked about whether or not your comparison of granite vs steel strength is valid, since it is not believeable that the panels were held by a single support, and you reject doing any research into local codes that would give solid info about that.

It is suggested that you look into escaping air velocity, but decline to do any calcs. You finally relent, but do a calc that measures the collapse speed instead. So they're provided to you, and you reject that too.

It is suggested to you that the columns could have reached the WG just by long lengths tipping in the direction of the WG during the collapse - and then conserving their angular momentum - but that research avenue is rejected too.

Instead, you cling to your speculation of natural occuring FAE's cuz you think NIST should have looked into it, even though you have rejected other mudane explanations without, from what I can tell, even giving it any real consideration.

Do you see a pattern? Is that the pattern of an open minded person? Is repeated rejection of mundane explanations open minded?

Originally posted by exponent
Where is the evidence that was promised?

The images and diagrams above show only the proposed velocity of various perimeter sections, using values which don't seem extreme by any measure.

If indeed explosives were used, why is it that the heavier sections of debris travelled roughly the same distance as the lighter sections (excluding of course debris so light it can be suspended in air). Explosives detonate at extremely high speeds and accelerate lighter debris to a much higher velocity.

On top of this, how did these explosives make no sound at all? There are videos of the collapse of both towers and we don't hear any of these massive booms that would be expected. Gravy's video clearly shows how loud even a few lbs of explosives are, and you're asking us to believe that hundreds if not thousands of lbs were used in order to produce this effect, but they made no distinguishable noise?

I look forward to your response.

I can't believe someone would take the time to even answer to this garbage. Much of the content of this forum would be alright for a comic book, and that's about it. However, do not just accept without question what governments tell you. They are liars to the core.

Originally posted by exponent
Where is the evidence that was promised?

The images and diagrams above show only the proposed velocity of various perimeter sections, using values which don't seem extreme by any measure.

If indeed explosives were used, why is it that the heavier sections of debris travelled roughly the same distance as the lighter sections (excluding of course debris so light it can be suspended in air). Explosives detonate at extremely high speeds and accelerate lighter debris to a much higher velocity.

On top of this, how did these explosives make no sound at all? There are videos of the collapse of both towers and we don't hear any of these massive booms that would be expected. Gravy's video clearly shows how loud even a few lbs of explosives are, and you're asking us to believe that hundreds if not thousands of lbs were used in order to produce this effect, but they made no distinguishable noise?

I look forward to your response.

I can't believe someone would take the time to even answer to this garbage. Much of the content of this forum would be alright for a comic book, and that's about it. However, do not just accept without question what governments tell you. They are liars to the core.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ah I see, so explosives were used in the basement then right? And here is the multi-million dollar question, for what serious purpose?
After all, everything needs a purpose because if not, then what was the point?

I'm not in a position to answer all the why's.

Just because I have no idea why it doesn't disprove the evidence at hand.

Do you want me to make a logical guess as to why, so you can fixate on it and ignore all the rest of my factual points?

How about the explosives in the basement were designed to weaken the structures foundations? Does that sound logical enough? I mean one of the witnesses was there during the 93 bombing and he thought it was the same thing again. So he had a precedence for his belief, which makes him a credible witness, if you would quit trying to spin his statement.

A jet fuel caused explosion would be the answer as survivors from the basement and ground floor all recall a large blast from the elevators with fireball and an overpowering smell of jet fuel.

Jet fuel does not explode, that has already been covered, jet fuel when ignited causes a deflagration. A sudden and hot burn, not an explosion. No explosive force to damage, or bury in rubble, a 50 ton press weighing 500lbs.

...What the gentlemen all described was destruction and damage done from the fuel spill and explosion from the impact above. And the debris covered up your press and there you go. I don't think they expected for you to take it literally when they said, "everything was just gone". Evaporated, disappeared?....

Sorry but you're just guessing, and then in your arrogance you believe you must be right. Again jet fuel, NO EXPLOSION.

Also how did the aircraft impact cause explosions in the lobby?

Lol they weren't talking literally? So why didn't they say that everything was covered in debris then? Sounds to me like they were surprised that the press disappeared, not just got covered in debris. Debris would have been the first thing they saw, thus the first comment they would have made.

You really are just pulling at straws, and your biased view doesn't allow you to think logically about these events.

Your hypothesis is the least likely to have happened because you have physics working against you. Just like in your 'the collapses were caused by jet fuel' hypothesis. Yeah that's some magic jet fuel they must have used?

And then there is the bombs in WTC6 also...
9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions in WTC6 lobby

I guess that was jet fuel running down elevators also huh?

[edit on 12/31/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

1-I'm not in a position to answer all the why's.

2-Jet fuel does not explode, that has already been covered, jet fuel when ignited causes a deflagration. A sudden and hot burn, not an explosion.

3-No explosive force to damage, or bury in rubble, a 50 ton press weighing 500lbs.

4-Sorry but you're just guessing, and then in your arrogance you believe you must be right. Again jet fuel, NO EXPLOSION.

5-So why didn't they say that everything was covered in debris then?

6-Sounds to me like they were surprised that the press disappeared, not just got covered in debris. Debris would have been the first thing they saw, thus the first comment they would have made.

7-You really are just pulling at straws, and your biased view doesn't allow you to think logically about these events.

Y

1- this is a fair answer. So how about this then - how did the hypercompetent group that did it get the calcs all wrong for blowing a column then?

2- I wish Griff would listen to you.....

3-no explosion is necessary. I did a calc for the velocity of the fire door. Do you agree with it?

4- and you're guessing that a deflagration couldn't blow out the elevator doors, marble/granite panels, drywall etc.

5- why don't you ask them?

6-pure speculation

7-the same could be said of you. You are taking their statements and interpreting them as you wish to fit your agenda.

reply to post by ANOK


My arrogance?
And what are the truthers all doing?
Guessing, opinions, etc are being used as proof or "evidence" of foul play, and yet you accuse me of being arrogant for guessing in a logical manner of an event that occurred?

Well then, I still find it humorous that you honestly believe that there were explosives in the basement and are suggesting that this is what caused an entire press to disappear in rubble. Because as all the physical evidence shows, those alleged "explosions" in the basement didn't do a darn thing to the overall events on 9/11 or even contribute to the collapses.

When the jetfuel poured down the elevator shafts (and incinerated some unfortunate riders inside), and blew the doors off the elevators, and caused a fireball in the basement (from the shaft NOT a random room), I wonder how can an explosive do all that and create a smell of jetfuel everywhere? The fumes igniting from the jetfuel as it poured down would have been just as explosive. There has been a report on just how jetfuel fumes are explosive and what danger they can be to aircraft. I'm surprised you didnt know that. Jet fuel will explode when its already been turned into a mist, or its vapors catch fire. And that makes it explosive, enough to destroy an aircraft, or dislodge a large door and knock granite tile from the walls.

www.tc.faa.gov...

Plus I wonder why when a plane crashes we see a large fireball go up into the sky if jetfuel or its vapor is not explosive, or how FABs do what they do best. When a plane impacts a building we saw a large fireball. There were many reports of jet fuel pouring down the shafts and covering some people in it, including witnessing fireballs going down the shafts. Explosives do not cause people to catch fire, nor do they burn people up inside elevators.

Originally posted by GenRadek
When the jetfuel poured down the elevator shafts (and incinerated some unfortunate riders inside), and blew the doors off the elevators, and caused a fireball in the basement (from the shaft NOT a random room), I wonder how can an explosive do all that and create a smell of jetfuel everywhere? The fumes igniting from the jetfuel as it poured down would have been just as explosive. There has been a report on just how jetfuel fumes are explosive and what danger they can be to aircraft. I'm surprised you didnt know that. Jet fuel will explode when its already been turned into a mist, or its vapors catch fire. And that makes it explosive, enough to destroy an aircraft, or dislodge a large door and knock granite tile from the walls.

www.tc.faa.gov...

I wish Seymour Butz would listen to you.

Plus I wonder why when a plane crashes we see a large fireball go up into the sky if jetfuel or its vapor is not explosive, or how FABs do what they do best. When a plane impacts a building we saw a large fireball. There were many reports of jet fuel pouring down the shafts and covering some people in it, including witnessing fireballs going down the shafts. Explosives do not cause people to catch fire, nor do they burn people up inside elevators.

Again, I wish Seymour would listen to you.

reply to post by Griff



Well, GR's wrong about that. It was a deflagration in the shafts. A low overpressure, low speed event should be perfectly capable of blowing out doors, panels, drywall, etc. My calc on the fire door show that. The same should apply for other flat surfaces - lotsa area to absorb the (slow speed) impulse.

If it was a high velocity explosion, the people that got burned also would have died from overpressure.

But really, it's all about degrees of velocity, isn't it? Who's to say exactly how well aerosolized the fuel was? You'd at least agree that the better aerosolized, the faster the combustion - and if it's fine enough, velocities might approach explosive velocities? This is what a real FAE is engineered to do.

People surviving the event suggests that is was deflagrations.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Well, GR's wrong about that. It was a deflagration in the shafts. A low overpressure, low speed event should be perfectly capable of blowing out doors, panels, drywall, etc. My calc on the fire door show that. The same should apply for other flat surfaces - lotsa area to absorb the (slow speed) impulse.

Do these other flat surfaces include wall sections?

I guess it would depend on the windows as they would be the weakest part of a wall section. But, since the windows were designed to withstand hurricane winds at an elevation of 1,100 ft. (don't forget the factor of safety too), I would think these windows would be pretty sturdy. No?

If it was a high velocity explosion, the people that got burned also would have died from overpressure.

This is the best point you've made so far. But, as you have said, it doesn't need to be an explosion to have force behind it.

But really, it's all about degrees of velocity, isn't it? Who's to say exactly how well aerosolized the fuel was? You'd at least agree that the better aerosolized, the faster the combustion - and if it's fine enough, velocities might approach explosive velocities? This is what a real FAE is engineered to do.

Yes. I can agree with this.

People surviving the event suggests that is was deflagrations.

Good point.

Originally posted by Griff

Do these other flat surfaces include wall sections?

Ext columns? Yes.

They have a frontal area of 12.2 m^2. And the lightest were 3054kg.

Using Mackey's template, 100kg of TNT (40 psi and 17.2 ms) gave a velocity of 18.6m/s.

But I think that assumes a column "hovering" in mid air and doesn't cover the force needed to break one off, etc. Neither does the door calc, but some deformation might occur when the pressure wave hit it, and accounting for the deformation was all i was looking at.

So at 2psi and ...... WAG of 100ms gives appx 6 m/s.

Originally posted by GenRadek
When the jetfuel poured down the elevator shafts (and incinerated some unfortunate riders inside), and blew the doors off the elevators, and caused a fireball in the basement (from the shaft NOT a random room)

How much jet fuel poured down which elevator shafts, GenRadek? You've made the claim that it happened, so you must have some data that supports it?

Where is it?

There were many reports of jet fuel pouring down the shafts and covering some people in it, including witnessing fireballs going down the shafts. Explosives do not cause people to catch fire, nor do they burn people up inside elevators.

Do any of these reports state exactly how much jet fuel poured down exactly which elevator shafts?

I've read the NIST report. I can't find much in it about specific quantities of jet fuel pouring down any elevator shafts... I might have missed it, so if you've found it, you can provide me with the link.

Wait a minute...you guys are acting as if you are not aware that the elevators were disgned and built in staggered floors o it was IMPOSSIBLE for fire to travel directly up or down the shafts.

There is NO WAY possible for jet fuel to survive the initial burn off but then be abundant enough to pour down shafts!! It did not happen. There is NO evidence of anything but explosives, not traveling fire. Elevators were blown and fire was present, but you might as well forget any chance of jet fuel pouring down the shafts..look at a diagram of the Towers and see what I mean.Impossible.