An Open Letter to FDNY Firefighter John Schroeder from a debunker

reply to post by exponent

What sort of bomb would create large sooty fireballs that leave people with contact burns but no blast injuries? It seems only a hollywood gasoline bomb or jet fuel matches. If this is the case, why would anyone set off such a bomb on several different floors of the towers?

The only thing I know about bombs is that there many different types.

Also note that eyewitness on the 22nd floor states that Flames were shooting off the walls.

Originally posted by totallackey
No. I will not retract it. There may only be drywall present at each front entrance/exit point where the doors open to allow entry/exit. But it is not a full accounting of all the materials present, including the steel doors which slide open and closed. You posted drywall like it is the only material there. This is absurd. Get back to us with the NIST statements which back this foolish claim. I will be here. I won't be holding my breath though. I would die of lack of oxygen.

Drywall provides the primary fire protection in many structures. It's been in use since the 60s: archrecord.construction.com...

Here is the quote from NIST detailing the construction:

Vertical shafts surrounding stairs, mechanical shafts (carrying supply and return air), elevator hoistways,
and utility shafts were all contained within the building core of the WTC towers, and were enclosed by
gypsum planking similar to fire separations commonly used today in single-family attached housing.
These gypsum planks were 2 in. thick and 2 ft wide, reportedly with metal tongue and groove channels
attached to the long sides. These were likely two 1 in. panels held together by the metal channels. Their
length in WTC 1 and WTC 2 is unknown, but similar panels today are available in 8 to 14 foot lengths.
The planks were placed into metal H-channels at the top and bottom and secured by drywall screws.

NIST NCSTAR 1-7 Page 31

What temperature does it ignite? What temperature source and spark triggered your fantasy-land depiction of events of fuel leaking 1000 feet down to lobby level? Why would the fires already taking place at impact point not make use of all available jet fuel as a source of fuel? Is it because the jet fuel was able to miraculously HIDE from the fire?

I have already explained this in detail. The fuel didn't burn because there was not enough oxygen to burn. Have you ever ignited a pool of fuel? You realise that it did not all burn instantly right and simply burns as much as oxygen is supplied to it?

What hat did you pull the 10 minute figure from? Is the hat a deluxe model? Does it include a rabbit?

edit on 23-9-2012 by totallackey because: clarity

It's from the NIST report. A report it seems you didn't read if you don't even know the basic construction of the building. Why not just read the report?

Originally posted by maxella1
The only thing I know about bombs is that there many different types.

There are principally three major types. Deflagrations, low explosives and high explosives. The type of explosion that's described by pretty much everyone is a fuel deflagration. That's why the 'official story' states it was jet fuel, as it's the only obvious candidate.

Also note that eyewitness on the 22nd floor states that Flames were shooting off the walls.

edit on 23-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Even more convincing evidence that a fuel fireball was the cause of the damage, as it will adhere and burn on surfaces. High explosives put out very low amounts of heat compared as they turn into gas and expand almost instantly.

You are aware that similar damage and fires were reported on something like 20 other floors of WTC1 right? This was a very common occurrence in WTC1 but not WTC2. The likely reason is the angle of impact, fewer holes were exposed and less fuel collected in WTC2.

reply to post by exponent


Now merely state what materials COMPRISED the construction of the BUILDING CORE and you now know the COMPLETE STORY of what comprised the construction materials of the ELEVATOR SHAFTS!!! Are you being purposefully obtuse? It is all there. The steel framing, concrete floors, and support frames for the concrete floor. All of it was connected.

Originally posted by totallackey
Now merely state what materials COMPRISED the construction of the BUILDING CORE and you now know the COMPLETE STORY of what comprised the construction materials of the ELEVATOR SHAFTS!!! Are you being purposefully obtuse? It is all there. The steel framing, concrete floors, and support frames for the concrete floor. All of it was connected.

The floors were beam framed with concrete yes, but this doesn't change the fact that the protection for the shafts was not concrete. It was 2" gypsum drywall as I have said on multiple occasions.

I am not being purposefully obtuse here, the aircraft is not going to slice through the entire floor infrastructure before hitting the shafts, the parts that were damaged were the parts that spanned the floors. These were made up of lightweight angles and 2" drywall.

What more would you like from me? It seems to me that you just don't want to back down and admit that what I said was accurate.

Originally posted by exponent
Nobody is telling him that he didn't see what he saw. What is being said is that he inferred and was confused about things because of the incomplete information, and that it was immoral not to tell him what is now known. Nothing more.

No people are telling him- "yeah that's what you saw but what you saw is not what you think it is." When the fqact remains- these people telling him this WERE NOT THERE!

If I told you that the North Tower collapsed first. What would you say to me?

What would this matter? It certainly has nothing to do with the analogy I proposed.

There will always be many questions. That is my point. There are many thousands of missing transitional fossils. They will always be missing because a find introduces two more. The lack of complete information in no way requires a 'new investigation'.

How about a real and complete investigation. Fact is, we never had one. Even the 9/11 Commission admitted that they failed to look into aspects that did matter, such as who funded the attacks (even though they blamed Bin Laden anyway). Of course people from this same Commission have called the 'investigation" a cover up, a white wash, and called it incomplete. So your suggesting I should take the word of these people about what happened, but ignore their statements about the "investigation"? The Chairman himself called it a white wash- if that is not proof positive that the "investigation" was incomplete then I don't know what to tell you.

They weren't, the only 'explosive' was the plane and its fuel. If this was a conspiracy, then Bush wouldn't be contradicting anything. Occam's Razor favours bad wording over anything more nefarious.

huh? Perhaps you are not familiar with Bush's own words.


"explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people from escaping"

This has nothing to do with the plane or it's fuel and this is Bush's own words which is a direct contradiction to what we are told happened on 9/11. Of course it does not shock me that you would rather ignore these remarks, the same way you ignore the remarks of Chairman of the 9/11 Commission who called it a "white wash".

Just like you would rather ignore the words of Senator Max Cleland who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a "National Scandal" and admits in an interview that we do not have "the full story" and that the White House wants to "cover it up"

Just like you want to ignore the words of 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry who said, "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration."

So you can sit here all day long as say, "There was an investigation and everything that needs to be answered has been, we know what happened." Well that's good for you that YOU know what happened when even the members of the 9/11 Commission themselves do not know what happened, question the story they put out and still have questions of their own.

I do that all the time, like when I say the Iraq War was unjustified and illegal. It doesn't bother me. Bush is a moron.

No argument here, Bush is a moron. However that does not change the fact that he said explosives were used. Does it?

Except the questions have been answered, in detail, by multiple studies and multiple groups. The fact of the matter is that people don't accept these answers, and want a new investigation because they believe it will change those answers.

As I shown above- even members of the 9/11 Commission rejected their own report as being based on "Government lies" from the White House, the CIA, the FBI, and NORAD. So this is not a case of not liking the answers or ignoring the answers.. the answers are lies and are admitted as being lies.

That is why "truthers" must produce convincing evidence, because there is already evidence that shows they are wrong. They must provide superior evidence that shows how the existing theory is incorrect.

So the words of the 9/11 Commission's report is evidence but their words about the report is not evidence?

Originally posted by MrWendal
No people are telling him- "yeah that's what you saw but what you saw is not what you think it is." When the fqact remains- these people telling him this WERE NOT THERE!

Why is this supposed to be a bad thing? Many people make mistakes when they are in stressful situations. Answering the questions of a distressed victim is generally seen as a positive thing!

What would this matter? It certainly has nothing to do with the analogy I proposed.

The point is that he didn't even get the order of the collapse of the towers correct, he was clearly extremely stressed and without full information. Informing him of this doesn't seem like a bad thing in my view.

How about a real and complete investigation. Fact is, we never had one. Even the 9/11 Commission admitted that they failed to look into aspects that did matter, such as who funded the attacks (even though they blamed Bin Laden anyway). Of course people from this same Commission have called the 'investigation" a cover up, a white wash, and called it incomplete. So your suggesting I should take the word of these people about what happened, but ignore their statements about the "investigation"?

Actually if we expand this to cover intelligence failings and that sort of thing then I don't really oppose an investigation. I find it quite easy to believe that incompetence or dodgy dealings were covered up for political purposes. It's the controlled demolition theories that I take umbrage with.

This has nothing to do with the plane or it's fuel and this is Bush's own words which is a direct contradiction to what we are told happened on 9/11. Of course it does not shock me that you would rather ignore these remarks, the same way you ignore the remarks of Chairman of the 9/11 Commission who called it a "white wash".

Of course I ignore the remarks. Bush made them. The guy is an idiot, he can barely string a sentence together and was one of your worst ever presidents. You're acting as if I should take everything he says as gospel. He also says he saw the first plane impact on TV? Do you believe him there? I sure don't.

So the words of the 9/11 Commission's report is evidence but their words about the report is not evidence?

Please know that not a single commission member you've mentioned is talking about controlled demolition theories at all. They are talking about the exact same thing I am suspicious of, and would not oppose more investigation into.

These are two different issues in my mind. The controlled demolition issues have been adequately investigated and incredibly thoroughly explained. On the other hand there has been relatively little investigation into political connections, lack of action or failed intelligence operations etc. It's any support of the former that I argue against.

reply to post by exponent

I have already explained this in detail. The fuel didn't burn because there was not enough oxygen to burn. Have you ever ignited a pool of fuel? You realise that it did not all burn instantly right and simply burns as much as oxygen is supplied to it?

So the open holes from the point of impacts and the exhaust vents already present in the towers were incapable of providing oxygen?

Originally posted by totallackey
So the open holes from the point of impacts and the exhaust vents already present in the towers were incapable of providing oxygen?

Not at all, they were capable of providing a certain rate of oxygen flow, which is why it takes about 10 minutes for all the fuel to burn up.

You're not learning anything here, this is all described well in the NIST reports, you're not answering my questions and ignoring the answers I give you. Please spend some time and think before replying so that we can have a proper conversation.

reply to post by exponent


Yes, the aircraft will need to slice through ALL ASPECTS of the building, including the concrete, steel columns, steel trusses, steel floor pans, and interior steel columns of the core, before impacting the elevator shafts.

In addition, I asked you at what temperature does jet fuel IGNITE. I do not go around lighting POOLS OF jet fuel or gasoline. Tell me what was the ignition source for the fuel you claim made it all the way down to the lower levels of the towers.

Originally posted by exponent
You have decided to ignore any numbers or calculations and decide on the effects of impact on steel by intuition.

That's because we have what's called the "real world" out here. Things concocted in a lab and then professed as truth are not necessarily what happens out here in the real world.

I've been working with steel and aluminum for the last decade and can tell you from experience, and something that anyone can try at home, that there's no possible way for the plane impacts to have been felt in the basements of the towers. Hell, even people just a few floors away from the impacts didn't even feel the impacts. They just felt the building swaying.

So, yes, I will ignore calculations from an agency that has been proven wrong time and time again, and rely on what happens out in the real world by real people who conduct real experiments.

Originally posted by exponent
You've done this a few times now, decided that science is not really worth its weight

Correct. The "science" that comes from NIST is not worth it's weight.

Originally posted by exponent
you have been wrong on every major subject I think I've ever seen you present a strong opinion on.

Firstly, that would be an extremely false statement. And secondly, that would only be in your opinion.

Originally posted by exponent
Please present the calculations supporting your claim or retract it.

I don't need to. Others have already done them.

Originally posted by exponent
Do you really think that an unreviewed article on a 911truth domain is somehow massively convincing evidence?

Did you even read the paper by Dr. Andre Rousseau, PhD?

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?

That paper is on a number of domains around the internet. How about you Google the paper then, and pick a domain that's more pleasing to you.


And here's another paper on the seismic events of 9/11. This time from Dr. Graeme MacQueen, PhD:

Did the Earth Shake Before the South Tower hit the Ground?


Both papers by both PhD's prove the NIST calculations that you hold so dear, to be inaccurate and incorrect.

Originally posted by exponent
You won't accept the opinion of thousands of professionals signed to the NIST report who spent years of their life, but a single article on a 911 truth domain is enough? This is a clear example of the bias you apply to your research.

Not a single article, but multiple articles. And who cares what domain it's on? You would dismiss a paper from a PhD because of the domain it's hosted on? As stated earlier, go pick a domain on the internet that pleases so you can actually take the time to read papers written by real and unbiased scientists.

But, it is also a clear example of the bias you apply to your research. You would dismiss a paper written by an expert in his field because of the domain it's hosted on. And you would rather trust in NIST's calculations with blind faith that they are accurate and correct without any kind of scrutiny what-so-ever.

I don't believe in blind faith. I know what the NIST report says, and I know what the papers above say. The papers above corroborate all other available evidence. NIST's calculations and guesses do not.

Originally posted by exponent
I think everyone can see that your bias has been made absolutely clear here.

Says the person who dismisses papers by experts based on the domain they're hosted on.

Originally posted by exponent
A calculation done by experts at NIST and published years ago for anyone to review is considered unacceptable to you.

Not unacceptable, Just inaccurate. With some inaccuracies based on negligence and lies.


And before I go...

Originally posted by exponent
The floors were a total of 4" of concrete, a thin steel pan, and that is it.

Actually, that's not it:




The floors also consisted of light-weight trusses under the steel pan and concrete. It was these trusses that provided support for the floors, and connected the perimeter columns to the core columns.

Furthermore, the mechanical floors incorporated steel beams instead of trusses for added support.

Originally posted by exponent
Prove me wrong BoneZ

I just did.

Originally posted by totallackey
Yes, the aircraft will need to slice through ALL ASPECTS of the building, including the concrete, steel columns, steel trusses, steel floor pans, and interior steel columns of the core, before impacting the elevator shafts.

In addition, I asked you at what temperature does jet fuel IGNITE. I do not go around lighting POOLS OF jet fuel or gasoline. Tell me what was the ignition source for the fuel you claim made it all the way down to the lower levels of the towers.

The ignition source could be almost anything. There's a reason that these fuels are labelled highly flammable. Hot debris falling, motor brushes, lighting circuits, static discharges, the list is endless. It would also explain why the explosions were in some cases delayed, because if the air is too saturated it won't burn.

reply to post by exponent

You're not learning anything here, this is all described well in the NIST reports, you're not answering my questions and ignoring the answers I give you. Please spend some time and think before replying so that we can have a proper conversation.

I am setting here and reading the NIST Reports. I have seen you reference the NIST Reports ONE TIME! I have seen quotes from the NIST Reports ONE TIME. I have quoted the NIST Reports numerous times!!! You have NOT!

Here is one more for you.

The aircraft and subsequent fireballs large open areas in the building exterior, through which air could flow to support the fires.

NIST 1-5 ES p.xlix

Further in the same report, the NIST wants you to believe the jet fuel made it to the LOBBY area in 40 - 45 secs after impact.

reply to post by exponent


ONE MORE TIME!!!

AT WHAT TEMPERATURE!?!? IN ADDITION, jet fuel needs to be atomized or gaseous to be ignited in the fashion you state. It will not explode in the open. It will not penetrate a sealed area.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by exponent
You have decided to ignore any numbers or calculations and decide on the effects of impact on steel by intuition.

That's because we have what's called the "real world" out here. Things concocted in a lab and then professed as truth are not necessarily what happens out here in the real world.

It always amazes me when I see people literally deny the relevance of calculations and science because they claim to have some overriding experience:

I've been working with steel and aluminum for the last decade and can tell you from experience, and something that anyone can try at home, that there's no possible way for the plane impacts to have been felt in the basements of the towers. Hell, even people just a few floors away from the impacts didn't even feel the impacts. They just felt the building swaying.

So we have a choice of your intuitive knowledge of what would happen in situations you've never been in at scales you've never experienced, or the data received by seismographs that have been interpreted by career professionals. I think I'll pick the data over your speculation.

So, yes, I will ignore calculations from an agency that has been proven wrong time and time again, and rely on what happens out in the real world by real people who conduct real experiments.

This is just confirmation bias in action, you ignore anything that disagrees with you and in this case you're stating it explicitly. Tell me, which seismology groups can be trusted and which are "in on it"? This conspiracy surely is vast!

Not a single article, but multiple articles. And who cares what domain it's on? You would dismiss a paper from a PhD because of the domain it's hosted on? As stated earlier, go pick a domain on the internet that pleases so you can actually take the time to read papers written by real and unbiased scientists.

The irony of complaining about biased scientists and linking to 911 related journal pages is not lost on me. I can't believe you can do such a thing without realising the inherent contradiction. How am I to know whether these articles are remotely accurate? I am not a professional seismologist and so these should be reviewed by experts in their field. Which of these papers have been published professionally?

The fact is that you are doing exactly what I said, you're listening only to sources that already agree with you and becoming more and more convinced because all you hear from these sources is that you're right. You make it crystal clear again when you say this:

I don't believe in blind faith. I know what the NIST report says, and I know what the papers above say. The papers above corroborate all other available evidence. NIST's calculations and guesses do not.

(bolding mine)

We've been through the evidence probably tens of times, and I know that you are well aware of evidence that contradicts your theories. Despite this you seem to become more convinced every time, now saying that all evidence supports you.

Says the person who dismisses papers by experts based on the domain they're hosted on.

As a parting note, my favourite fact about this is that I didn't, I just explained to you why it shows your bias. You interpreted my criticism of you as rejection of your evidence.

PS.

The floors also consisted of light-weight trusses under the steel pan and concrete. It was these trusses that provided support for the floors, and connected the perimeter columns to the core columns.

Furthermore, the mechanical floors incorporated steel beams instead of trusses for added support.

Totally accurate, but I was referring more to items that could 'stack up' and form large groups. Trusses were completely mangled and destroyed, but there's plenty of them in the debris.

Originally posted by totallackey
I am setting here and reading the NIST Reports. I have seen you reference the NIST Reports ONE TIME! I have seen quotes from the NIST Reports ONE TIME. I have quoted the NIST Reports numerous times!!! You have NOT!

You say you are reading the NIST reports, then why did I have to fight you over a page in order to explain that elevators were protected by drywall and so damaging it would not be difficult?

Here is one more for you.
...
Further in the same report, the NIST wants you to believe the jet fuel made it to the LOBBY area in 40 - 45 secs after impact.

Anyone can type into this forum, do you have any reason other than your own incredulity to doubt these claims?

ONE MORE TIME!!!

AT WHAT TEMPERATURE!?!? IN ADDITION, jet fuel needs to be atomized or gaseous to be ignited in the fashion you state. It will not explode in the open. It will not penetrate a sealed area.

A little over 200°C is needed to ignite Kerosene I believe, not 100% sure about Jet A. I know the fuel needs to be in vapour form because I gave you the concentrations on the previous page. Why are you asking pointless questions? A static discharge is more than enough to ignite flammable vapour and occurs everywhere. Electrical sparks are more than enough to ignite flammable vapour and occur everywhere. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

reply to post by exponent

Even more convincing evidence that a fuel fireball was the cause of the damage, as it will adhere and burn on surfaces. High explosives put out very low amounts of heat compared as they turn into gas and expand almost instantly.

That's a good one... So now this "magical super duper al qaeda hate us for our freedom" jet fuel is capable of targeting key areas where a lot of the security recordings and emergency controls are located...

Originally posted by maxella1
That's a good one... So now this "magical super duper al qaeda hate us for our freedom" jet fuel is capable of targeting key areas where a lot of the security recordings and emergency controls are located...

From the very same post you are quoting:

Originally posted by exponent
You are aware that similar damage and fires were reported on something like 20 other floors of WTC1 right? This was a very common occurrence in WTC1 but not WTC2. The likely reason is the angle of impact, fewer holes were exposed and less fuel collected in WTC2.

So the exact opposite of what you are implying. Widescale fires including floor 22.

reply to post by exponent

Why is this supposed to be a bad thing? Many people make mistakes when they are in stressful situations. Answering the questions of a distressed victim is generally seen as a positive thing!

So why do you think he's not buying it still?

The point is that he didn't even get the order of the collapse of the towers correct, he was clearly extremely stressed and without full information. Informing him of this doesn't seem like a bad thing in my view.

What difference does this make? He specifically states that where he was which is inside the tower there were things happening that did not make any sense to him then and still don't now.

It's the controlled demolition theories that I take umbrage with.

Was Oklahoma City bombing a controlled demolition too? or was it just a bomb with intent of killing people and destroying a building?

Of course I ignore the remarks. Bush made them. The guy is an idiot, he can barely string a sentence together and was one of your worst ever presidents. You're acting as if I should take everything he says as gospel. He also says he saw the first plane impact on TV? Do you believe him there? I sure don't.

Maybe because he is such an idiot as you call him, he forgot that it's a secret? Many idiots don't know how to keep a secret, would you agree?

Please know that not a single commission member you've mentioned is talking about controlled demolition theories at all. They are talking about the exact same thing I am suspicious of, and would not oppose more investigation into.

As you know the Commission was not supposed to investigate the cause of WTC collapses. But if they openly state that the White House was covering something up, how are we supposed to know that WTC wasn't one of the things they are covering up?

These are two different issues in my mind. The controlled demolition issues have been adequately investigated and incredibly thoroughly explained. On the other hand there has been relatively little investigation into political connections, lack of action or failed intelligence operations etc. It's any support of the former that I argue against.

It was investigated but Bush's friend was in charge of what goes into the final report.. Remember we discussed this already. So Bush is covering something up according to the Commission, why wouldn't he try to influence the NIST investigation through his friend?

reply to post by exponent

You are aware that similar damage and fires were reported on something like 20 other floors of WTC1 right? This was a very common occurrence in WTC1 but not WTC2. The likely reason is the angle of impact, fewer holes were exposed and less fuel collected in WTC2.

Can you provide a link where I can see what 20 other floors you are talking about? Because all I remember finding is this

From the 9/11-Commission Report: "A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators. The fireball exploded onto numerous floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground." (ch.9, pg.285)

i may be mistaken but that doesn't look like 20 other floors to me. I will appreciate your link very much.