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

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Can you please source this, Bonez. The vast majority of injuries that I have read about in the Lobby and basement were burns.

Construction worker Phillip Morelli was working in the basement levels. At 3:52 he talks about the people that got killed and severely injured from the walls and debris from the explosions:

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Not looking at the time line as you see it, do you think there was ever any fire below the impact points caused by deflagration of the jet fuel?

No I do not. I believe fiery debris may have fallen down the only 2 shafts that ran from top to bottom. But even a kerosene explosion cannot account for the devastation reported in the lobby and basement levels.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


He also says...

Construction worker Phillip Morelli, a 37-year-old Queens native, loved his seven years of working at the World Trade Center. When he heard the impact of the first airliner striking more than 90 floors above, he thought something big had tipped over in one of the other basement levels just above him.

He encountered smoke and screaming people when he made his way up to the underground parking lot, then started running over to the other tower, the way out from there. He arrived as the second airliner hit, sending the walls crashing down around him.

Here are some pictures that also show lobby damage.
1
2
3
4

These are still s form the Naudet brothers I believe.

This is what it looked like around 8:30 that morning....
lobby

I thought it was known that there were people who died during the impacts in the lower floors as well as close ot 40 burned of which less than half survived.

reply to post by esdad71


I want you to read this part that you posted and think about what it means:

the second airliner hit, sending the walls crashing down around him.

The plane hit almost a quarter-mile above sending walls crashing down around him in the basement levels? If that doesn't raise a flag and make you say "huh??? ", then I don't know what will.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
But I'm not actually aware of reports of fires in the lobby of the ESB.

From the reports i found the lowest fires were on the 75th floor.

Also i am wating for a response about the high octane avgas that burns hotter then jet fuel but there was no real damage to the steel reported.



[edit on 21-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Are you trying to say that there were 'bombs' that exploded during the 'impact' of the planes into the towers? If this is the case, why would the towers stand for as long as they did? Are you suggesting that there were 2 separate times that explosives were used on both towers? Please explain your self so I know where you are

Originally posted by esdad71
Are you trying to say that there were 'bombs' that exploded during the 'impact' of the planes into the towers?

We've been saying that for years. And actually the first explosives were mistimed and set off just before the first plane impacted:

Originally posted by esdad71
If this is the case, why would the towers stand for as long as they did? Are you suggesting that there were 2 separate times that explosives were used on both towers?

Why did the Landmark Tower stand after the first series of explosions?





It was the second series of explosions that took that tower down as well.

There were continued explosions in both WTC towers from top to bottom before and up to their demise.

I started a thread earlier...everyones forgetting Felipe David, probably the first to get injured on 9/11. He stated there was an explosion, and then he felt heat and his body was burnt and skin hanging off...nthing to do with fire, he doesnt mention fire only Willy Rodriguez mentions fire..

Heres the ATS THREAD. Maybe the links on the thread help a little to explain why theres so much blast and very little fire.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by andy1972]

reply to post by esdad71


Your logic is absolutely non sequitur.

Please draw you thoughts together into something that makes sense.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Are you trying to say that there were 'bombs' that exploded during the 'impact' of the planes into the towers? If this is the case, why would the towers stand for as long as they did? Are you suggesting that there were 2 separate times that explosives were used on both towers? Please explain your self so I know where you are

There were bombs exploded in the basement in the 90's. They didn't fall. Saying there was or was not a bomb at the time of impact is ludacris. Theres no way you can know that, the people investigating it haven't even made a determination.

"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.

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."

How could there have been explosions in the lobby at the "exact moment" of impact, when cascading jet fuel or magical fire balls require a certain amount of time to travel down 800 feet? The two events you describe could only occur simultaneously if the explosions at the alleged point of impact on the 79th floor and the explosions in the lobby were two separate events.

Your two statements do not only contradict each other, the first statement supports the theory of a separate bomb blast in or around/below the lobby area.

"They did, however experience similar damage in the South Tower lobby."

The two alleged aircraft struck the buildings in two completely different locations, however, there was similar damage sustained in both lobbies? How does this happen? One way it happens is if there were simultaneous bomb blasts occurring at the time of the alleged airliner impacts.

Witness: "ACE Elevator mechanic Robert Jones"

One of approximately 70 or 80 Ace Elevator employees who ran from the Towers after the second impact to the South Tower. Instead of these guys (who had important intricate knowledge of the elevator system) staying around to help fire, police and other officials, they booked. Did they know the towers would collapse or were they just cowards interested in saving their owns skins and not helping those who were trapped? Either way, you can decide on their credibility.

"the chandeliers shattered on the floors along with the plaster ceiling, and the force imploded in at about 50 mph"

Am I supposed to believe this witness was able to estimate the rate of speed of an unseen force by just listening to it or observing the damage it created? Heck, it's difficult enough to estimate the speed of objects you can see, such as automobiles. This is why police officers use radar detectors.


[edit on 21-3-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 21-3-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by jprophet420


Bomb damage from 1993




If say Bombs planted in basement caused building to fall then left with 2 options


1) Large size bombs

Bomb large enough to do this level of damage would be noticable - both to emplace and certainly noticable when detonated

The above picture shows the damage from 1500 lb truck bomb placed in B2 garage . It blew down 7 levels to the PATH train station and almost
caused collapse of WTC 3 (Marriott then Vista hotel).

Now if someone set off bomb that size on 911 dont you think if would be noticed ?

2) Smaller size bombs

Now if go for smaller bombs left with paradox of how to do sufficent damge to topple such a massive building?

So what is it ?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Bomb damage from 1993




If say Bombs planted in basement caused building to fall then left with 2 options


1) Large size bombs

Bomb large enough to do this level of damage would be noticable - both to emplace and certainly noticable when detonated

The above picture shows the damage from 1500 lb truck bomb placed in B2 garage . It blew down 7 levels to the PATH train station and almost
caused collapse of WTC 3 (Marriott then Vista hotel).

Now if someone set off bomb that size on 911 dont you think if would be noticed ?

2) Smaller size bombs

Now if go for smaller bombs left with paradox of how to do sufficent damge to topple such a massive building?

So what is it ?

I made a whole thread about it but no responses, but in a nutshell:

even if the bombs in the WTC did not bring down the towers, whoever planted them is on the inside, and were not "suicide" bombers. There was an investigation into bombs at the WTC complex on 9-11-2001 that has yet to be completed.

If you feel that from the armchair that you post from you can conclude something that the actual investigators were unable to conclude, then maybe you should put in for the job yourself. Thats not sarcasm.

Finally, the fallacy in your logic is the "'either or' so pick one"... I forget the name for that one but its blatant.

And again that brings us back to the point that there is know possible way someone could know for certain that there were NO bombs until we have a complete investigation.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Are you trying to say that there were 'bombs' that exploded during the 'impact' of the planes into the towers? If this is the case, why would the towers stand for as long as they did? Are you suggesting that there were 2 separate times that explosives were used on both towers? Please explain your self so I know where you are

There were bombs exploded in the basement in the 90's. They didn't fall. Saying there was or was not a bomb at the time of impact is ludacris. Theres no way you can know that, the people investigating it haven't even made a determination.

reply to post by jprophet420


Why not? It is a simple question? Do you believe that there were bombs in the basement or do you believe the lobby was destroyed initially on impact as I an showing in this thread? I mean, some people think it was space lasers and holograms. I am trying to find out a posters beliefs because everyone is different and you should not group everyone together. That shows ignorance and prejudice and we are not here to do that.

As far as this quesiton from you also...

Your logic is absolutely non sequitur. Please draw you thoughts together into something that makes sense.

How much simpler can I make it? I posted the videos (3 of them) along with the person who I am showing was in the lobby as the plane hit and then was burned over 40% of her body as the elevators exploded close to an hour before the 'collapse' is initiated.

Each time I ask a question you state you cannot know and that is why we need another investigation. If you don't know what it was then what do you expect to find in another investigation? This thread is trying to show that the 'lobby explosions' were actually caused by the impact not before the collapse.

How much simpler can I make it?

Simple does not equal correct by any means. Sorry but there is no logic whatsoever in saying that "there were explosions at the time of impact therefore all explosions on 911 were from airplanes and collateral damage". None good sir, sorry.

Originally posted by thedman
Bomb large enough to do this level of damage would be noticable - both to emplace and certainly noticable when detonated

The explosions were noticeable to by-standers, survivors, first responders, and media reporters. The explosions did extensive damage to the lobby, the machine shop, and the parking garage.

FDNY firefighter veteran John Schroeder says that the damage to the lobby was nowhere near the elevators and the there was "no way" kerosene could have done the damage seen. He goes on to say that there was no burn marks, no fires anywhere, just heavy damage.

We have people like "thedman" who claims to be a firefighter that says kerosene could have and did do the extensive damage seen in the lobby and lower levels. We have a verified FDNY firefighter who says there was no way kerosene could have done the extensive damage seen.

Then I've been in contact with another first responder with HAZMAT and dangerous goods training and he also says that kerosene could not do the extensive damage seen on the many different floors.

Who is training these firefighters and first responders, and why aren't they all on the same page when it comes to certain chemicals such as kerosene?

Thedman, I don't deny that kerosene can be explosive, but to the extent seen on so many different lower floors? Not a chance.

Originally posted by thedman
Now if go for smaller bombs left with paradox of how to do sufficent damge to topple such a massive building?

Firstly, the explosisves would've been in the cores, not out in the open like the van. Secondly, you wouldn't need such a massive explosion from a car-bomb. They weren't trying to topple the building with the basement explosions. They were only trying to weaken the structure at certain points with shaped charges.

Just like the video I posted above of the Landmark Tower implosion. A first series of detonations took place to weaken the structure. The second series brought the structure down. At the WTC, they spaced the first series of detonations out over an hour or so in both towers so it wouldn't be as obvious. But criminals can never cover their tracks well enough.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.

Yeah, you sure about that? So if I were to got to the top of a 70 story building and pour water out then that stream of water would look and act exactly the same at the base of the building as the stream looked as it poured out of the edge of the bucket?

I don't think so - in fact I know that isn't so. So do you.

The kerosene (jet fuel) acted the same way all liquids do when exposed to that physical condition, they aspirate. The elevator shafts were filled with a cloud of kerosene which in turned caused an explosion when it met with an ignition source.

Originally posted by hooper
The elevator shafts were filled with a cloud of kerosene which in turned caused an explosion when it met with an ignition source.

And vaporized not causing any major jet fuel fires on the lower floors.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
The elevator shafts were filled with a cloud of kerosene which in turned caused an explosion when it met with an ignition source.

And vaporized not causing any major jet fuel fires on the lower floors.

We don't know that, do we? There may have been other explosions on other floors that were not reported, yes? In fact, one of the big pieces of "evidence" for controlled demolition are the reports of explosions, correct? Now here is a simple, scientific explanation that is easily observable and can be repeated and yet it is being dismissed.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You realize, of course, that one of the most powerful non-nuclear devices in the military aresenal is in fact, a fuel-air bomb. Simply apsirate any combustible material, introduce an ignition sources and instant destruction of tremendous proportions.

Think about grain elevators.

Originally posted by hooper
We don't know that, do we?

Well the firemen who made it to the 78th floor did not report any major jet fuel fires.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by REMISNE]