Burn victim verifies elevator explodes during 'impact' to North Tower not during collapse

Let me introduce you to Vasana Mututanont. A citizen of Thailand, she works for a Thai government agency that had offices in the World Trade Center and was there the morning of 9/11. She was one of the lucky ones who survived the morning attacks of 9/11. She is walking across the lobby of the North Tower when Flight 11 crashes into the WTC. As she is approaching the elevator she hears what appears to be a large explosion.

She turns to run out of the lobby but it cut down by a shard of flying glass that cuts a tendon in her leg. Before she can rise she is engulfed in flames and burned over 40% of her body due to the explosion that destroys the elevator in the lobby. She was pulled to safety by her husband.

This would mean that there were explosions in the lobby of the North Tower at the exact moment of impact of AA 11 and not during the collapse as initiating events to start the collapse. This is a main argument of many 9/11 conspiracy theorists that bombs and /or secondary explosions bought down the towers just prior to collapse. This shows that as false as well as reason that there would be fires in the lower and sub floors of the WTC.


Links to support thread

1

Vasana Mututanont, a native of Thailand, was burned over 40 percent of her body when the elevator doors of Tower One opened in front of her and released a ball of burning jet fuel.

"I pray," she said five years ago. "'Oh God.' I say, 'Oh God, if this is it, take me.' So I just closed my eyes, but then, He didn't take me, so He want me to live."

Today her pain is largely gone but the scars from the skin grafts remain.

2

Here is some firefighter testimony also....

sites.google.com...:witnessaccounts,lobb

Firefighter John Morabito of ladder 10, which is just 200 yards from the north tower.
“Just inside the front entrance, Morabito found two victims of the fireball. A man, already dead, was pushed against a wall, his clothes gone, his eyeglasses blackened, his tongue lying on the floor next to him. The other was a woman, with no clothes, her hair burned off, her eyes sealed.

Some more from the same article

Lobby & 3rd floor: Firefighter Peter Blaich
As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn’t recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That’s when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that’s the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you’re camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I do’nt recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.

There was a lady there screaming that she didn’t know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.

That’s the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. I’m assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint

What I am trying to show here is that the fires in the lobby and/or basement that are referred to were real and these are the reasons why.

To all those that doubt the 'kerosine-based' jet fuel could not have reached the lower levels we have not only eyewitness accounts of those who arrived but those who were involved. With the South Tower, it is hit lower with a direct line to the lower levels since it cut directly through the sky lobby of 78 but that is another thread for another time....thank you for your time.

Well, I personally don't doubt that the original impact caused a lot of damage, but I think the major point Truthers try to make is that the fire alone couldn't have brought down the building.

So, there's an impact, it causes a lot of damage but not enough to destroy the building, then the explosives detonate, bringing down what's left.

I am unclear why people perpetuate false claims instead of trying these experiments on their own. Pouring kerosene down elevator shafts will not make it explode. Pouring a large puddle of kerosene on the ground and igniting it will not make it explode.

Do you realize how much heat it takes to blow out windows? Do you realize how thick the lobby windows were? It would take a very powerful explosion to blow out the 1" to 2"-thick glass in the lobby.

What else was damaged by this explosion in the lower levels?

- The several-hundred-pound marble walls in the lobby were cracked and falling down.

- The parking garage was heavily damaged.

- A 300-pound steel and concrete fire door was blown off its hinges and crinkled up on the floor like it was tin foil.

- A 50-ton hydraulic brake press "disappeared" along with the rest of the basement-level machine shop.


Not to mention all the people that actually reported an explosion in the basement levels before the plane even hit:






You can try all day long to get kerosene to explode and to cause the kind of devastation and destruction that was seen in the lobby and basement levels, but you will never succeed.

Explosives explode and cause massive devastation. Lighting some hydrocarbon fuel on fire will not.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not to mention all the people that actually reported an explosion in the basement levels before the plane even hit

Greetings Mr. Bonez,

As you are probably well aware, witness statements are often confusing and often contradictory of other witnesses and the actual facts of the event or events. Physical evidence is always key.

The collapses started at the point of impact in both towers one and tower two. Setting off charges in the basement 1 hour before (give or take a few minutes) to assist in a top down demolition does not really make sense to me.

In addition, can I ask you if explosions were witnessed in both tower basements prior to the planes impact?

- Thanks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I am unclear why people perpetuate false claims instead of trying these experiments on their own. Pouring kerosene down elevator shafts will not make it explode. Pouring a large puddle of kerosene on the ground and igniting it will not make it explode.

Do you realize how much heat it takes to blow out windows? Do you realize how thick the lobby windows were? It would take a very powerful explosion to blow out the 1" to 2"-thick glass in the lobby.

What else was damaged by this explosion in the lower levels?

- The several-hundred-pound marble walls in the lobby were cracked and falling down.

- The parking garage was heavily damaged.

- A 300-pound steel and concrete fire door was blown off its hinges and crinkled up on the floor like it was tin foil.

- A 50-ton hydraulic brake press "disappeared" along with the rest of the basement-level machine shop.


Not to mention all the people that actually reported an explosion in the basement levels before the plane even hit:


You can try all day long to get kerosene to explode and to cause the kind of devastation and destruction that was seen in the lobby and basement levels, but you will never succeed.

Explosives explode and cause massive devastation. Lighting some hydrocarbon fuel on fire will not.

Very interesting video, especially the 2 explosions at the end. You have the first one at 6:58 and the second occurring between 6:59-7:00 mins.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Silverado292]

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Silverado292]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


- A 50-ton hydraulic brake press "disappeared" along with the rest of the basement-level machine shop.

If I may add another question, please. (sorry for being a nudge)

How much does a 50 ton hydraulic press weigh? (approximately)

reply to post by _BoneZ_

I am unclear why people perpetuate false claims instead of trying these experiments on their own. Pouring kerosene down elevator shafts will not make it explode. Pouring a large puddle of kerosene on the ground and igniting it will not make it explode.

What if you were to pour kerosene down a 700 foot or 800 foot shaft? What happens to the liquid as it falls? Does it maintain its original density or does it begin to aspirate? What happens then, within the confines of the shaft, when an aspirated cloud of kerosene finds an ignition source such as falling burning debris? Does it simply burn or does it explode? Well by evidence of the internal combustion engine I would speculate that it explodes. Don't believe me about the aspiration? Look at any photos of waterfalls over 500 feet high and tell me what you think.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Is that really a bomb or explosion of some kind going off at 6:57 in the video? It sure seams like it? Can anyone explain what that was?

WTH, after everything that has been shown, after thousands upon thousands speak out, after all the accusations and evidence, how can there still not be an investigation? What happened to Justice?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

.....snipped....Pouring kerosene down elevator shafts will not make it explode. Pouring a large puddle of kerosene on the ground and igniting it will not make it explode.

What if you were to pour kerosene down a 700 foot or 800 foot shaft? What happens to the liquid as it falls? Does it maintain its original density or does it begin to aspirate? What happens then, within the confines of the shaft, when an aspirated cloud of kerosene finds an ignition source such as falling burning debris? ....snipped....

Greeting folks,

I was thinking about this and I was playing a little ping pong in my mind. I think what is important to note is that a B-25 hit the Empire State building in the 40's and had only 800 gallons of fuel. Yet enough of that went down the elevator shafts to start fires in the lobby of that building. The planes on 9/11 had over 10K each.

reply to post by Smell The Roses


I believe that those were the sounds of the plane hitting the building and then the plane exploding. The sounds would not have been simultaneous.

reply to post by esdad71

A missile loaded with a fuel-air bomb would have the same effect.

A demolition nuke at the bottom of the lift-well would have similar results, and explain the flash-burns and burnt cars around the buildings.
In that case the jet fuel or fuel-air bomb would explain the smell.

Sorry, your info is not proof of anything other than that something exploded..

reply to post by Silverado292


Your proof of explosions is someone's feet and no time stamp? Not sure where the proof is.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
As you are probably well aware, witness statements are often confusing and often contradictory of other witnesses and the actual facts of the event or events.

A single witness, yes. When you have multiple witnesses describing the same exact thing, then you have evidence.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Physical evidence is always key.

The physical evidence was the devastation and destruction of the lobby and basement levels that kerosene could never achieve.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
How much does a 50 ton hydraulic press weigh?

It doesn't weigh 50 tons if that's what you're asking. It's weight, though, is about 1.5 tons (almost 3000 pounds). They are rather large and heavy machines.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I think what is important to note is that a B-25 hit the Empire State building in the 40's and had only 800 gallons of fuel. Yet enough of that went down the elevator shafts to start fires in the lobby of that building.

I think what is important to note is that there isn't a single image or video of fires in either lobby of the towers. Just heavy explosive damage.

Fiery debris from the upper floors could have fell down the elevator shaft (that's one shaft that leads from the top to the bottom) and penetrated the roof of the elevator car and burned the people inside. But there are no scorch marks, burns or fires in either lobby. Just blast damage.

Removing due to it being a brake press, and not a drill press.
My mistake Bonze.

[edit on 3/19/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by hooper
What if you were to pour kerosene down a 700 foot or 800 foot shaft? Does it maintain its original density or does it begin to aspirate?

Yes it does maintain it's density. Just as rain drops maintain their density when falling from thousands of feet and higher winds.

Nice try though.

Once again al-Qaeda conspiracy theorists distort the facts as presented by the 9/11 scientific truth movement. There were no explosion or fires in the sky lobby above the main lobby, as would be required if jet fuel had streamed down the elevator shafts. There were ground-level explosions shortly before the plane impact in the north tower and shortly before the collapse of the south tower.




[edit on 19-3-2010 by Crito]

Originally posted by hooper
I believe that those were the sounds of the plane hitting the building and then the plane exploding. The sounds would not have been simultaneous.

Care to show a video of either plane sitting inside the towers for 7-10 seconds before they exploded?

Oh yeah, the planes didn't explode either. You just saw fireballs from the fuel being ignited. If kerosene was as explosive as some claim here, those floors where the fireball was would have been obliterated. They weren't.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Here is a page to what a 50 ton hydraulic press looks like:
www.gregsmithequipment.com...

That is a 50-ton hydraulic drill press. I'm pretty sure I said brake press:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/256dae1d6334.jpg[/atsimg]






[edit on 19-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Smell The Roses

 

I believe that those were the sounds of the plane hitting the building and then the plane exploding. The sounds would not have been simultaneous.

Okay, so you are saying the plane hitting the building would be enough for the camera to phase out for that second? Not likely. Maybe the explosion but not the impact. Just curious what people think about that because it REALLY gave me an eerie feeling.

I mean the REAL proof of a bomb explosion we are looking for may be right before our eyes?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The physical evidence was the devastation and destruction of the lobby and basement levels that kerosene could never achieve.

Greetings once again Mr. Bonez,

I am pleased with the amount of passion you place in your posts. You seem like you are eager to learn. (as am I) I did a search for your above claim to see if there were a scientific back up either for or against. I did find some interesting reading and I will post some of it here and source the remainder.

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

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

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

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

To begin, let us model the problem as follows: Suppose the entire basement of a Tower suffered an overpressure event, sufficient to cause the observed damage. We can describe the damage qualitatively:

* There was extensive damage to interior and furniture over a wide area.
* Damage to the structure, however, was minor to negligible.
* There are no reports of anyone being killed by the blast. The principal danger was fire.

Based on these factors, we estimate that the magnitude of the pressure pulse was moderate, in the range of 1 PSI, since overpressures of 5 PSI typically damage or destroy all but hardened structures, and would have surely killed many who were inside. Nevertheless, we want to overestimate the energy requirement to make absolutely certain that my contention -- that the jet fuel is more than sufficient -- is true. We will use the higher, less credible estimate of 5 PSI. In proper units, this is 34.5 kPa.

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

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

read the rest here:
forums.randi.org...