Explosion in lobby caused by jet fuel?

I was searching for something else when I found this, and noticed in the video, the lobby had suffered a percussion blast of some sort. The 'official' word (or at least the OTC word) is that jet fuel caused the blast.

where is the damage from the fuel? where is the smoke?

link to video

not one person that backs the story that jet fuel caused the explosions in the lobby has a comment on this? Why? Ive seen it mentioned many many times but i've never seen it explained on any level. that's why I opened a thread on it. I've been here some time now and read more than I post by far and it seems every time I get this "we've been over this already" feel to it. Most of the time tho I feel like "we've been over this already but didn't come to any kind of solid conclusion".

The former can be annoying, the latter would prove treason if left unchecked. Maybe I just answered my own question?

reply to post by jprophet420


Hi Jprophet ~

Your question was "where is the smoke?"

Pretty much where and when the fireballs reached different floors, they were in hallyways where there was minimal combustible materials. Therefor the fires would not be as severe as in other areas. So, i would have to assume there would be minimal smoke in these areas. (incluiding the lobby) There was however one floor (i believe it was 78) where the hallway outside the elevators was on fire.

In the past I have posted many eyewitness reports to the fireballs, statistics as to how many survivors smelled Kerosene, firefighter statements that mantioned pools of jetfuel in elevator shafts.

There what should be taken into consideration is the types of injuries people were treated for that made the claim of a fireball. Their wounds were consistant with that of jet fuel burns. If you would like, I may be able to post some statements from some of the survivors.

NIST also has a section in their report that outlines the fuel displacement.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.

CO

all of what you said implies heavily that there was a bomb. there was fire damage on the 78th floor, which was close to impact that would make sense. Also, if there was no fire damage in the lobby it implies the lobby was not close to any burning jet fuel. The theory of course states that the lobby was 'blown out' by jet fuel exploding down the elevator shaft. it cant be both and i see a lobby with no fire damage, no smoke, and evidence of a huge percussion blast.

i will eventually read all 3 reports in full, perhaps the NIST will be the first i conquer.

What jet fuel? Most of the jet fuel was burned up in the intial blast, what was left burned off quickly according to both NIST and FEMA.

Debunking the WTC1 Main Freight Fireball Myth

This was written by Bsbray a while ago.. It goes into detail about the fireball.

Yes, NIST specifically states the majority of jet fuel was consumed in the explosion at impact.

Something that repeatedly has be re-addressed here is this:

There was some limited amount of unspent fuel after the explosion of the initial collapse. We have evidence of that in survivor/eye witness accounts of "cascading burning jet fuel" falling onto the tops of elevators in the seconds/minutes after the impact. But here is where everybody gets tripped up - YOU CAN'T HAVE AN FAE WHEN YOU HAVE BURNING LIQUID JET FUEL. If you have burning liquid jet fuel, you have too rich a mixture for an FAE. So the very presence of what little jet fuel did remain being seen cascading in fire-falls in certain elevator shafts precludes there being an FAE in the elevator shafts by the unspent jet fuel.

By physics alone I get to say - you can't have it both ways.

[edit on 8-22-2007 by Valhall]

I don't think it's possible for the fuel to reach the lobby and still be burning. Fire makes heat and heat rises. Notice when the planes hit & the fire ball comes out the flames 1st go down then UP otherwise there woulda been a lotta fried NYkers below that day. The lobby looks like something exploded below it shattering windows and loosening huge marble tiles from the lobby walls.

From my recollection of video taken by the Naudet brothers, the firemen entering the lobby thought the place looked like a bomb had gone off, but I don't recall hearing any of the firemen remarking about the smell of fuel or of burning fuel.

I don't remember any references to fuel.

Fuel references might be in the collected testamonials which also include references to multiple explosions within the building.

For 7 years I have seen so many variant stories...yes stories...of bombs and more bombs with the WTC 9/11 deal. And I have seen stories of laser directed, remote controlled airplanes being used, missiles, invisible mini-nukes, holograms and other outlandish stories about 9/11 and the WTC buildings.

I would like to see some hard evidence out of the massive investiagions and studies done that clearly, without a doubt, prove, not just speculate or postulate, but PROVE there were bombs, missiles, holographs, or all this other far fledged stores are true.

Its been 7 years and the only thing that seems to have merit is the official reports and studies.

But hey if there is proof they are wrong, Im happy to look at it and consider it. Lets see the proof.




Cheers!!!!

"When the plane hit the top, that's when the bombs were going off on the lower floors. It was like the plane hit the first floor." - quote from an eyewitness to WTC attacks.



In this video you can actually see a row of explosives detonating on the lower floors as the plane hits the top.

Ask yourself this:

Is the damage on the lower floors (i.e. ground level floor/lobby area) consistent with ONLY a strike by an airliner on the 80th floor?

Logic says NO IT IS NOT.

Enough said.

reply to post by RFBurns

I would like to see some hard evidence out of the massive investiagions and studies done that clearly, without a doubt, prove, not just speculate or postulate, but PROVE there were bombs, missiles, holographs, or all this other far fledged stores are true.

Would you mind specifying what hard evidence would constitute proof of the presence of bombs or of the explosions of bombs at the WTC on 9/11?

We in the public have watched a lot of the broadcast footage from the news media which went out on the day. There are numerous accounts of people hearing explosions. There were statements about the discovery of "secondary devices", suspicions of firemen regarding bombs planted in the building, etc. There is an account of an explosion in the lower levels of one of the towers, prior to the impact of the airplane above.

Most members of the public conclude from this that there is a very high probability that bombs were planted in the building.

From time to time someone (hailing from the state of Missouri, I presume, "Me ya gotta show.") comes along demanding "hard" proof. You have to keep in mind that the Bush administration didn't want an investigation of 9/11 at all. The investigation they eventually did conduct was widely regarded as a sham and a shambles.

The only "hard proof" I can think of that would satisfy a classic "Doubting Thomas" type that there were bombs in the building would be the capture, intact, of a bomb from the building. There were references to secondary devices and a secondary device may well have been located, but good luck ever getting to see it on display.

The day after 9/11, people who referred to bombs, secondary devices and explosions, in the media and in supervisory positions in the fire department suddenly dummied up and never mentioned those things again.

It's obvious (to me) what was going on. You will never get your hard proof out of the current administration or likely out of the next one. Until then you will have to use your intelligence, evaluate the evidence we do have and think like a member of a jury. The phrase "preponderance of evidence" becomes important.

Hard evidence of the kind you are referring to would take an investigation of the kind we haven't had yet from the US Government.




[edit on 26-12-2008 by ipsedixit]