Bomb in the basement of the WTC north tower

[Bushwacker]

KP50 would like discussed what he describes as the basement bomb theory of Rodriguez and co - the many witnesses who describe the devastation in the basement at the time of the first strike. He would like to know just how the strike on the 105th floor could cause the amount of damage described by the witnesses and why this evidence never appeared in the Commission Report.

[pepik]

Why did the building collapse from the top?

Why would such a powerful bomb not kill everyone in the basement?

Why couldn't jet fuel make it to the basement?

Why do you repeat tired old nonsense that conspiracy theorists tell you to think?

[Stefan]

Pepik,
Bush whacker is a skeptic, he is playing devils advocate.

Why did the building's detonation begin at the impact point? You may as well as ask "Why didn't they make it completly and utterly obvious to everyone that 9/11 was an inside job". It's just a silly question.

Why couldn't jet fuel make it to the basement? This suggests it remained in liquid form after the plane had just flown into the towers, avoiding the ignititon which all the jet fuel was saw suffered, poured all the near quarter mile down the tower and then exploded when it splashed onto the basement floor. Engage your mind please.

The jet fuel is used by official conspiracy theorists to solve far too many problems. The NIST report states clearly that it burned off within 15 minutes, mostly outside the buildings in the fire balls we all saw. Yet OCT will use it to try and explain the 1377degree temparatures six days after the collapse on the surface of ground zero (well jet fuel was burning under there all that time!) basement explosions (the jet fuel poured down the core!) other explosions (there was jet fuel everywhere, of course there would be loud bangs!) and of course the destruction of the towers themselves (jet fuel weakened the steel!). On close investigation NONE of these excuses fly, and there isn't enough jet fuel to account for them all either.

Why would such a powerful bomb not kill everyone in the basement level it occured on? The chances are it did kill most people, the two victims we know of Phillipe David was getting in a lift as it exploded, and still suffered a coma and severe burns, the other (a carpenter whoes name I can't remember) was in a lift going through the B sections and wasn't hit directly from it.

If you want detailed suggestions from an engineer of just how the explosions were used to bring the building down, I would recommend to you the June event of the London Public Meetings at the Indian YMCA. We will have a qualified experienced engineer explaining how this could have been acheived, and how impossible a gravitational collapse resembling what we saw on 9/11 is. I would recommend you come along, we will have the excellent Calam Douglas also giving one of his much enthused over presentations on the same bill.

[KP50]

[pepik]

[Stefan]

Pepik,
In terms of why basement explosions would be neccesary, I would advise you come to our June public meeting, where engineer Gordon Ross will explain why this could have been. Without wanting to stray beyond my knowledge I was say what a physicist in our group who knows Mr Ross related to us in laymans terms- it has to do with severing the core columns from the bedrock - and leave Mr Ross, an expert, to explain the rest in June. Put your money where your mouth is and come along.

In terms of the central park comment....

In terms of the vauge "this the wonderful thing about the internet blahblahblah" that didn't sound like a rebuttal to me- it sounded like a whinge.

Just explain to us how some of the jet fuel didn't ignite from the impact of the plane, and we'll take it from there.

There are actually no explicit statements of fire in the elevator shafts which cannot be far better explained by a bomb in the basement than a plane a fifth of a mile up. Whats more- numerous WTC employees heard and felt it, and two were seriously injured by it.

You have not only offered no mechanism for how some of the fireball reversed its state into liquid, travelled down the towers and then exploded again, let alone explained the numerous reports of basement explosions.

[pepik]

[Bushwacker]

Why did William Rodriguez only decide he had heard explosions years after the event, and not mention them when interviewed at the time? Does this not make him a rather unreliable witness?

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

the second script is bo**ocks. LIM,BROWN and UNIDENTIFIED MALE, they mention mr rodriguez but theres nothing to say mr rodriguez was involved in that conversation.

in the first script he clearly mentions two rumbles.

both scripts say they have been rushed and may not be in there full context.

you may have reason to think what you think but at least show something solid if your trying to prove it.

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[KP50]

[David WJ Sherlock]

[karlos]

William Rodriguez has been consistant
he never ever denied he had heard explosions

[KP50]

[David WJ Sherlock]

[pepik]

[KP50]

[pepik]

This is becoming increasingly incoherent. You explain a bomb in the basement by rumblings an hour later.

[chek]

I thought it would be worth adding at this point that it's incorrect to consider 'the core' as a single entity, when we know it was composed of 47 massive columns spaced over a large area.

Perhaps severing some columns at the base as part of a sequence of destruction, rather than blowing out the entire structure at the base all at once, is more likely to be what Rodriguez witnessed.

Likewise, when claiming the core remained standing after the global collapse it is really more accurate to say that the columns forming the outer wall of the core appeared to be intact - though they certainly didn't exhibit much strength.

As with the main part of the building, the core appears to fall into a hole in the ground in terms of the speed it drops at, with no resistance from the apparently intact lower structure.

[thought criminal]

[chek]

[KP50]

[pepik]

All I asked is why you would sever something at the bottom if you wanted it to collapse from the top. It was a simple question for which I still have no answer.

[EmptyBee]

The core presumably had to fail in order for the building to come down, as much of the load bearing was doubtless done by the core. In the case of the North Tower there's pretty good evidence to suggest that it did fail due to the observable dip of the antenna on the top of the North Tower that goes before the rest of the structure.

The collapse appears to initiate at the structural damage to the exterior columns caused by the aircraft impacts.

The damage to the core seems to be substantiated in terms of computer models and hypothetical conjecture, as well of course, by the fact that the collapse occurred at all.

Initial reports about the failure of the Twin Towers essentially ignored the core (out of sight, out of mind) but the nature of its failure seems to me to be an important part of understanding why the buildings came down.

Now the NIST theory, to the best of my knowledge, states that the combination of the aircraft impacts and fire weakened the core on those floors, and the collapses we witnessed was then a consequence of the weight of the now unsupported floors above the aircraft impacts bearing down on the rest of the structure with catastrophic consequences.

I don't know if the NIST theory is probable or even possible, I know there's a number of people who have specific criticisms of their report, mostly related to how the fires could have reached sufficient temperature to significantly weaken the core.

Explosions and extensive damage in the basement (and those reported elsewhere, and even visible flashes way below the impact zone such as recorded here suggest to me the possibility of explosives of some kind, possibly used to destroy the integrity of the building (and especially the core) below the level of the impacts to ensure a complete catastrophic collapse occurred.

There are other eyewitnesses that report extensive damage in the basement of the North Tower, not just Rodriguez. Phillip Morelli, (interviewed here ) claims to have witnessed damage and injuries in the basement of the South Tower also, and claims people lost their lives in the basements. He also mentions the freight elevator as the origin of one blast (backed up by Marlene Cruz, see below). He does not mention a fireball however, only a blastwave of unknown origin.

Here is another interview with three workers who were hospitalised due to injuries sustained in the basement. Marlene Cruz (also interviewed here) claims to have been in the freight elevator which fell some distance before getting caught between two floors, and one of the other witnesses does claim to have witnessed a fireball. This suggests to me that fireballs coming down the elevator shaft(s) is a still a candidate for an explanation. The damage done to the basements and the lobby of the South Tower - which was filmed, seems to be so extensive that it's hard to conceive of how damage from hundreds of metres above could have travelled all the way to the lobby and basements. I'm no physics expert but it seems possible that the air blasted out by the explosion of fuel in the elevators could have caused much of the damage. Others dispute that a Fuel Air Explosion could have traveled such a distance and maintained its destructive energy from a thousand feet away, but then it still seems to me plausible given the power of explosives in confined spaces.

So I remain a skeptic on the basement explosions.

Here is a fairly extensive attempt to debunk the fireball explanation, it also includes some eyewitness evidence (such as the destroyed machine shop on the "C level" described by Mike Pecoraro).

This image of diagonally sliced box columns still suggests to me the possibility of explosives used to cut steel members at a low level. Hardly conclusive though. The intense heat that persisted at Ground Zero for weeks afterwards still hasn't been adequately explained either, AFAIK.

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]