Felipe David WTC 1 basement blast victim - Where theres smoke, there isnt always fire.

While reading and re-reading the 9/11 threads here on ATS, i really feel the evidence needed, the definative evidence needed to blow the whole 9/11 official story apart, is already here. We have seen or read it already, only when we read or see it, at that moment we dont understand its importance and we overlook it.

Thats why i try to bring to ATS threads revisiting what we have seen in the past, that now, in the light of current evidence, seems to make sense.

Thats why today i wnat to talk about Felipe David, who possibly could have been the first victim of 9/11 in sub basement level 1 of WTC1.

Felipe David worked for Aramark corp, replenishing the vending machines in the WTC 1.

He tells of the explosion and then a sudden heat that burned his body, but he doesnt mention anything about fire. An explosion that happened minutes before the impact of the first airplane. Its only Willy Rodriguez that mentions fire.

This guy was allegedy rescued by Willy and taken outside, where he was placed in an ambulance. The first and only news of him arrive on the scene some three months later in a video with Willy in hospital.

This is a video that shows there meeting -


This site here explains his story in more detail -

FELIPE DAVIDS STORY

Could the lack of fire and the sudden burns leaving his skin hanging from his body have been caused by a small nuclear device.

Does anyone know if the are levels of radiation at ground zero?

Does anyone know of his whereabouts, as Felipe David has disappeared.



[edit on 21-3-2010 by andy1972]

Im going out on a limb here and im going to ask you to take a look at the photos on THIS LINK.

The similarity is astounding...

There are a number of pages on the internet that mention levels of radiation at WTC1, but i dont know who to trust.
If anyone has exact details please post.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by andy1972]

Originally posted by andy1972
Im going out on a limb here and im going to ask you to take a look at the photos on THIS LINK.

The similarity is astounding...

There are a number of pages on the internet that mention levels of radiation at WTC1, but i dont know who to trust.
If anyone has exact details please post.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by andy1972]

THANK YOU FOR THIS LINK!!!!!!!!!! You have filled in a gap for me that's been in my mind for a while. A micro nuke...huh. It makes so much damn sense. That picture in the link... I was just watching 9/11 Mysteries and they were talking about military grade demolition.

Originally posted by andy1972

Could the lack of fire and the sudden burns leaving his skin hanging from his body have been caused by a small nuclear device.

No becuase there is no such thing as a small nuclear device. Any nuclear burst AT ALL would have melted Manhattan into radioactive slag and everyone within several kilometers would have either vaporized, or died of radiation within an hour.

You are barking up very much the wrong tree with this bit.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by andy1972

Could the lack of fire and the sudden burns leaving his skin hanging from his body have been caused by a small nuclear device.

No becuase there is no such thing as a small nuclear device. Any nuclear burst AT ALL would have melted Manhattan into radioactive slag and everyone within several kilometers would have either vaporized, or died of radiation within an hour.

You are barking up very much the wrong tree with this bit.

I'm stunned by your post, Dave . . .

Dave, can you tell us what the effect would be of a 0.01 kiloton nuclear device going off in the bottom of a lift-well in a skyscraper?

Do you deny that such devices were employed by the American military in the 60s, 70s and 80s?

Have you heard of Special Atomic Demolition Munition, (SADM) the Davy Crockett, the Wee Gwen, the Wee Gnat?

Do you believe these nukes have not been improved on in the meantime?

Originally posted by Kailassa
Dave, can you tell us what the effect would be of a 0.01 kiloton nuclear device going off in the bottom of a lift-well in a skyscraper?

.01 kiloton is 10 tons of explosives. If ten tons of explosive power were set off in the basement, it would have destroyed the base of the building and it would have toppled over. Look at what happened to the Murrah building with only two tons.

Not to mention, the whole process of nuclear fission necessarily means that massive amounts of radiation is emitted. The only way that massive amounts of radiation wouldn't be emitted is if it were nuclear FUSION, and scientists have been searching for that holy grail for decades. The laws of physics have to apply to your conspiracies just as they apply to the rest of us, you know.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The only way that massive amounts of radiation wouldn't be emitted is if it were nuclear FUSION, and scientists have been searching for that holy grail for decades.

Public scientists have been, yes, and many are confident it's theoretically possible, and just don't have the means or legal authority to test it.

How any nuclear bomb works exactly is completely unavailable technology to the public. So if people had not already seen them dropped you could claim that they are impossible too since no one can tell you how exactly to make one.

Enough with the name calling.

When we said we were cracking down on the 9/11 forums, we meant it.

Discuss this in a civil adult manner or don't post.

I will state this only once -
Those responsable for the 9/11 attacks have technology that doesnt even exist yet in the public eye on paper.

We CANNOT and therefore, should not accept anything on face value, simply because we dont know of its existance.

Millions believe in aliens, and yet we have NO posititve proof.
Millions believe in ghosts, and yet we have NO positive proof.

Simply because we have no proof doesnt mean, therefore, they dont exist.

Abscence of evidence does not equate to evidence of abscence.





[edit on 22-3-2010 by andy1972]

Originally posted by bsbray11
How any nuclear bomb works exactly is completely unavailable technology to the public. So if people had not already seen them dropped you could claim that they are impossible too since no one can tell you how exactly to make one.

No, actually, that's the excuse YOU people use, to avoid having to accept the possibility that the fires caused loss of structural integrity of the support braces. If every nut, bolt, and door hinge of the collapse isn't explained to you in exact scientific order then you think it must be fake. Even more incredibly, you'll faithfully defend Rodriquez when he says he felt an explosion below him but you turn around and say he cannot be believed when he says that fire came down the elevator shaft. Either Rodriguez is a credible witness or he is not.

I find it to be a double standard how you demand ever increasingly complex analysis on one moment and yet the next moment you'll accept without question any ridiculous thing some college kid put together in his dorm room. You cannot pick and choose according to your political agenda, you know.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I didn't say he was lying about fire coming down the shaft. That doesn't mean it was a fuel-air explosion coming all the way down from the plane impact, either. Remember there was a parking garage full of cars underground as well, and this floor was also affected. If I have a "problem" asking things to be explained to sufficient detail (ie detailing what exactly was causing all of the explosions, not unreasonable at all to ask), then you have a problem misrepresenting me as part of a vague group you imagine that doesn't actually think what I think.

Originally posted by andy1972
I will state this only once -
Those responsable for the 9/11 attacks have technology that doesnt even exist yet in the public eye on paper.

We CANNOT and therefore, should not accept anything on face value, simply because we dont know of its existance.

...but that's the exact same argument the theologists used to "prove" supernatural entities exist throughout human history. God can create human beings out of clods of dirt despite it being a violation of the laws of physics becuase he has supernatural powers we can't understand, the same way super secret gov't agents can get away with setting off nukes that defy the laws of thermodynamics because they "have technology that doesn't even exist in the public eye". This is just circular logic- you're trying to justify an argument by expanding the original argument in different terms in order to prove itself.

So, I will say to you, who insists I need to be angry becuase the gov't is constantly plotting to kill us all, the same thing that I say to Bible thumpers who insist I need to hate Gays and Lesbians or else I'm going to be sent to Hell: prove it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the same way super secret gov't agents can get away with setting off nukes that defy the laws of thermodynamics

Why must it be required that pure fusion defy laws of thermodynamics? You don't keep up with theoretical physics much, huh? The only reason it's theoretical, again, because these civilian scientists don't have the resources or authority to play with nuclear weapons.

reply to post by andy1972

Could the lack of fire and the sudden burns leaving his skin hanging from his body have been caused by a small nuclear device.

Does anyone know if the are levels of radiation at ground zero?

Does anyone know of his whereabouts, as Felipe David has disappeared.

Radiation levels were measured afternoon of 9/11 by mebers of FDNY Haz Mat unit

No Radiation levels above normal were deteced

As other posters have stated detonating a small nuclear device would have destroyed the building instantly

Even the smallest deployed nuclear device - W54 warhead for "Davy Crockett" recoiless launcher at 10 tons would have killed everyone within
350 meter with lethal burst of radiation

Here is calculator to give quick determination of lethal burst radius

If you have a good calculator which does fractional exponents or
Microsoft EXCEL can use these quick formula for calculating lethal radius

Simple weapons calculator -

y= yield in tons/2500, (kilotons multiply by 1000 to get y )

THERMAL =Y^.41 (thermal 3 degree burns)

BLAST = Y^.33 (4.6 psi overpressure - destroys all unreinforced
structures)

RAD= Y^19 (lethal dose 500rem radiation)

Multiply by 1000 to get radius in meters

Results for .01 ton ( 10 tons yield)

Blast 104 meters

Thermal 162 meters

Radiation 350 meters

Felipe David was flash burned by fireball of jet fuel as it blasted down elevator shafts

Number of others were burned by same fireball in lobby and on basement
levels

Originally posted by thedman
Felipe David was flash burned by fireball of jet fuel as it blasted down elevator shafts

Yeah, right. It blasted down 1000 feet of drywall shaft to blow out the WTC1 lobby and destroy a 300-lb blast door in the basement.

Do you have any proof of this? No, you don't.

reply to post by bsbray11


Ever hear of dust explosion - couple pounds of grain dust/flour/sugar
suspended in air can destroy entire concrete mill

Same thing here - suspend aerosol mist of fuel in air - atomized fuel
from jet fuel falling down shafts. Fuel was travelling at 500 mph when
hit building so would not take much to atomize it

There is a greater chance of a mini H-Bomb being used at the foundation of the Towers than the insanely ridiculous theory of this magical fireball speeding down 1,000 feet. Would a mini nuke or even a uranium depleted bomb cause molten metal and extreme heat at the foundation, as described by the fire fighters and rescue workers, even several weeks after 9/11? Why did it take so long for the fire fighters to finally extinguish the fires at Ground Zero?

I believe a hydrogen bomb also leaves a brownish type of cloud. Could explain why the media's poor quality video of the collapse contains inaccurate color shading?

In addition to mini-nukes in the foundation, the possibility of napalm being used at the aircraft impact areas must also be explored. Take a look at the video of these napalm explosions in Vietnam. Pay particularly close attention to the color, shape and streams of white smoke. Remind you of anything?

www.spike.com...

In contrast, below is a jet fuel explosion. Which explosion looks more like the explosion at the South Tower, the napalm or the jet fuel?








[edit on 22-3-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by Kailassa


If there was any "small nuclear bombs" going off in the basement, then why wasnt there any corresponding damage akin to a nuclear detonation? No EMP, no flash, no radiation, nothing even remotely similar to a nuke. the Davy Crockett had a yield of 10-20 tons of TNT. Do you have any idea of how much power that is? The Oklahoma City bombing was the equivalent of 4,000-5,000lbs of TNT (2 - 2 1/2 tons). WTC 93 had a yield of almost a ton.

Any detonation of a bomb larger than this would have obliterated the entire basement and surface area of the WTCs and even toppled them over. There is a limit size on how small you can make a nuke before it fizzles. Davy was the smallest.

Sorry, even nuclear bombs and nuclear technology has a limit. Cannot go any smaller or else critical mass will not be achieved. Even a suitcase nuke has its limits.

had a nuke gone off in the basement, it would have been very obvious. However the descriptions of the fireballs traveling DOWN THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS should put this basement bomb junk to rest once and for all, cause even in the basements and lobby the fireball came DOWN the shafts, nothing came UP, it came down. Riddle me this folks, if a bomb goes off in the basement, below you, then how the hell do you get a fireball to travel down from the floors above you?

Here read through the accounts here, find me one account from the lobby or lower levels of a fireball coming UP from the basement:
sites.google.com...

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Oh sphinx, thats no jet fuel my friend. That is (correction WAS) the site of PEPCON, which created ammonium perchlorate for the rocket fuel for the space shuttle solid boosters. PEPCON:

en.wikipedia.org...

The PEPCON plant, located in Henderson, Nevada just outside of Las Vegas, was one of only two American producers of ammonium perchlorate, an oxidizer used in solid fuel rocket boosters, including the Space Shuttle and military weapons.

Nope, not jet fuel. Not at all.

Here is what a jetfuel fireball looks like:

SphinxMontreal:
In contrast, below is a jet fuel explosion. Which explosion looks more like the explosion at the South Tower, the napalm or the jet fuel?

i think theB-52 crash looks more like the South Tower explosion dont you? You cannot compare ammonium perchlorate to jet fuel in this case.

[edit on 3/22/2010 by GenRadek]

[edit on 3/22/2010 by GenRadek]