An Open Letter to FDNY Firefighter John Schroeder from a debunker

Originally posted by maxella1
What are you talking about man? Nobody is arguing about in which order they collapsed. It's what was going on inside them before they collapsed, and i was not in there so I belive what professional firefighters say. As you know John Schroeder is not the only one that heard and felt explosions.

edit on 22-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Is that all this boils down to? Hearing and feeling explosions? Nobody denies that happens, hell people there tell us that bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.

I don't believe you've actually read this letter in full because it's a perfectly reasonable narrative of events that would relate to him personally.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


The WTC building structure was anchored into the bedrock of Manhattan

When the aircraft hit the shock was transmitted through the steel structure of the building into the ground
where it was reqistered by the seismographs. Both aircraft impacts were recorded on the instruments

911research.wtc7.net...

As for the destruction in the lobby/building basement - ever hear of a fuel-air explosion where fuel aerosol - air
mixture is ignited. Resulting explsoion can level an entire factory, which happens when grain or flour dust
explodes

Accidental vapor cloud explosion hazards are of great concern to the refining and chemical processing industry, and a number of catastrophic explosion accidents have had significant consequences in terms of injury, property damage, business interruption, loss of goodwill, and environmental impact.

And every year, many serious explosions and fires occur in industrial plants as a result of dust. Many materials form dust clouds that can easily ignite and explode, injuring personnel and damaging plant. This is a well-known phenomenon in the coal mining, grain storage, and the woodworking and paper industries. Many miners have been killed and injured and massive production losses have resulted from coal dust explosions in underground coal mining operations. Of the 129 grain dust explosions that occurred nationwide between 1987 and 1997, about half involved corn. Eleven were caused by wheat dust and 10 by dust from soybeans. Billions of tiny, highly combustible particles of grain are generated by grain kernels rubbing together as they move along conveyer belts and shifted between bins. Inside the enclosed chambers, those particles rise in a cloud. When the dust gets in with the right mixture of oxygen and comes in contact with a spark or even an overheated bearing on a conveyer belt, it is extremely explosive.

Almost all organic material in the form of a dust cloud will ignite at temperatures below 500 oC - approximately the same temperature as a newly extinguished match. Cotton, plastics and foodstuffs such as sugar, flour and cocoa can also, under the right conditions, act as explosives. In order for a dust explosion to take place, the dust particles must be of a certain size and the amount of finely granulated material per unit of volume must lie within certain critical values. There is generally a direct correlation between particle size and explosive hazard. The smaller the particle, the more reactive the dust. As the materials become smaller, they disperse and remain suspended more easily, increasing the potential for ignition and propagation of the reaction. Industrial explosion prevention measures include, where possible, providing nitrogen gas purging to ensure that the oxygen concentration is kept below that required for combustion. .

10,000 gallons of jet fuel provides quite a source for such an explosion. Falling 1000 ft in an enclosed shaft
which aersolize the fuel droplets into an explsoive mist. The elevator shaft acts to tamp the explosion

More on fuel air explosions

There are dramatic differences between explosions involving vapor clouds and high explosives at close distances. For the same amount of energy, the high explosive blast overpressure is much higher and the blast impulse is much lower than that from a vapor cloud explosion. The shock wave from a TNT explosion is of relatively short duration, while the blast wave produced by an explosion of hydrocarbon material displays a relatively long duration. The duration of the positive phase of a shock wave is an important parameter in the response of structures to a blast.

Although the detonation combustion mode produces the most severe damage, fast deflagrations of the cloud can result from flame acceleration under confined and congested conditions. Flame propagation speed has a significant influence on the blast parameters both inside and outside the source volume.
The blast effects from vapor cloud explosions are determined not only by the amount of fuel, but more importantly by the combustion mode of the cloud. Significant overpressures can be generated by both detonations and deflagrations. Most vapor cloud explosions are deflagrations, not detonations. Flame speed of a deflagration is subsonic, with flame speed increasing in restricted areas and decreasing in open areas. Significantly, a detonation is supersonic, and will proceed through almost all of the available flammable vapor at the detonation reaction rate. This creates far more severe peak over-pressures and much higher amounts of blast energy. The speed of the flame front movement is directly proportional to the amount of blast over-pressure. A wide spectrum of flame speeds may result from flame acceleration under various conditions. Hi .

Also high explosives produce other blast effects which are recognizable along with shrapnel

None of those effects were seen at WTC

TNT generates well over 4,000 psi overpressure in close proximity to the source of the explosion, along with significant radiant heat effects from the explosion's fireball. Conventional high explosive munitions also produce fragments from the munition case, as well as fragments from material in the target area that is broken loose by the high blast overpressures.

reply to post 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.

are you saying that somebody is keeping him away from the information that is known to everybody else? In the video I posted they say it has been 7 years since 9/11 and he still believes what he believed in the first interview. You're saying that he just don't know what you know, is that right?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
What are you talking about man? Nobody is arguing about in which order they collapsed. It's what was going on inside them before they collapsed, and i was not in there so I belive what professional firefighters say. As you know John Schroeder is not the only one that heard and felt explosions.

edit on 22-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Is that all this boils down to? Hearing and feeling explosions? Nobody denies that happens, hell people there tell us that bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.

I don't believe you've actually read this letter in full because it's a perfectly reasonable narrative of events that would relate to him personally.

I read the whole thing and i recommend anybody to read it because there are references in it which I found interesting.

The problem I have with you people is that you act like you have information that people who say something you dont like don't have.

Nobody is confusing the sound of bodies hitting the ground with explosions. That's why they say "the jumpers sounded LIKE explosions when they hit the ground".
But the firemen say there were three "definitely secondary explosions" where they were staging in the lobby and then it started collapsing.

Originally posted by thedman
When the aircraft hit the shock was transmitted through the steel structure of the building into the ground
where it was reqistered by the seismographs.

In my previous post I gave a simple example that anyone can try at home by using a hammer on a steel beam. The shock starts dissipating just over a 12-foot beam, let alone a quarter-mile of tons of beams.

Your personal theory does not, and cannot work in this situation.

Originally posted by thedman
10,000 gallons of jet fuel provides quite a source for such an explosion

Except we know and can see in videos that most of the fuel burned up in the initial fireball.

Originally posted by thedman
Also high explosives produce other blast effects which are recognizable along with shrapnel

And how are we going to see these "recognizable" blast effects when there's no buildings or debris left to examine? Furthermore, the explosives would've been in the cores. People didn't work in the cores, so shrapnel probably wouldn't have been a problem. It would also depend on what type of explosives were employed.

I also find it curious that you posted a quote about TNT explosives where it specifically states that there are "significant radiant heat effects from the explosion's fireball". People could've been burned this way and could also explain the destructive forces seen.


On top of all that, people in the buildings felt and heard explosions far after both planes had impacted, and far below the impact zones where there was no fire. Numerous witnesses are on record in describing these pre-collapse explosions where there were no fires and in both towers.

The fuel-air excuse doesn't work far after both planes had already impacted, and doesn't explain the continued explosions in both towers before and during collapse. So, it would be prudent to just throw that theory out altogether, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by maxella1
are you saying that somebody is keeping him away from the information that is known to everybody else? In the video I posted they say it has been 7 years since 9/11 and he still believes what he believed in the first interview. You're saying that he just don't know what you know, is that right?

That's what the letter is saying. That's what was relevant at the time.

The problem I have with you people is that you act like you have information that people who say something you dont like don't have.

We do have information that he clearly didn't. He expressed his extreme confusion. Are you really trying to chastise people for providing that information?

Nobody is confusing the sound of bodies hitting the ground with explosions. That's why they say "the jumpers sounded LIKE explosions when they hit the ground".
But the firemen say there were three "definitely secondary explosions" where they were staging in the lobby and then it started collapsing.

You should review the accounts in more detail. You're trying to create a gap to slot in 'explosives' where none exists. These people went through traumatic experiences which is why he doesn't even get the order the towers fell in correct. Providing accurate information to help explain his experiences is a moral thing to do.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In my previous post I gave a simple example that anyone can try at home by using a hammer on a steel beam. The shock starts dissipating just over a 12-foot beam, let alone a quarter-mile of tons of beams.

Your personal theory does not, and cannot work in this situation.

Your personal theory is based soley on your imagination BoneZ. An elastic wave can and does travel through steel when it is hit. It is your hand that attenuates this wave significantly. This is why I know quite a few people with serious wrist injuries after a decade or two working constantly with striking tools.

Seismologists confirm the effect. I'll take their professional expertise over your personal theory. No offence intended.

Except we know and can see in videos that most of the fuel burned up in the initial fireball.

You can estimate liquid volume inside a fireball? Nonsense BoneZ. That is all I can say to that, you're claiming supernatural abilities where none exist. Only a small proportion of the fuel could possibly have burned and we know that because people calculated it rather than guessing as you are.

And how are we going to see these "recognizable" blast effects when there's no buildings or debris left to examine?

Do you really think the WTC collapses left no debris? I don't even know how to respond to this. People survived the collapses, videos exist of the collapses. There are no supersonic shockwaves nor high speed ejecta to be seen. There are no audio records of shockwaves nor unexplained window shatterings facing the site etc.

On top of all that, people in the buildings felt and heard explosions far after both planes had impacted, and far below the impact zones where there was no fire. Numerous witnesses are on record in describing these pre-collapse explosions where there were no fires and in both towers.

How can people know the source of an explosion without seeing it? You indicate they can only feel or hear but somehow also know there's 'no fire'? You've gotta be kidding me.

reply to post by exponent

We do have information that he clearly didn't. He expressed his extreme confusion. Are you really trying to chastise people for providing that information?

You're the ones chastising people. I think that letter is an insult to the mans intelligence, and since he still has the same opinion about what he lived through even after this letter, I think he has the information but doesn't believe it because it is not what was happening to him. The confusion is because the lies you are defending don't make sense.

You should review the accounts in more detail. You're trying to create a gap to slot in 'explosives' where none exists. These people went through traumatic experiences which is why he doesn't even get the order the towers fell in correct. Providing accurate information to help explain his experiences is a moral thing to do.

How many times do you need to be shown what the firemen said on scene, on 9/11, on video in plain English "definitely secondary explosions"?

reply to post by exponent


I think you know that BoneZ understands there was debris left over after the collapse. You'd have to be blind not to see the pile of rubble.

The problem is the official story incorporates the "pancake theory". And as talked about by many people - if each of the floors collapsed unto each other until reaching the very bottom A) Where are the core beams? and B) Where are the floors? A lot of it WAS blown into dust, and there is a lot of testimony to the fact that people were only seeing small pieces of phones, computers, etc instead of intact objects. But my point is, there were no floors. There should have been at least 40 - 50 floors stacked up in a pile, AT LEAST, for a 110 floor high-rise skyscraper.

And let's not forget the beams weighing 20 tons or more in some cases, being thrown over 500 feet and into adjacent buildings.

During the destruction of the twin Towers, massive steel beams, weighing 4 - 20 tons or more, were ejected horizontally as much as 520 feet. Their motion can be examined as for projectiles. Projectile motion consist of a vertical and a horizontal component of velocity.

If a beam were ejected from the 95th floor of WTC1, the height at ejection is 95/110 x 1365 = 1179 feet. The time to hit the ground is given by distance = ½ x g x (time)² where g= 32.2 ft/sec² is the acceleration due to gravity. 1179 = ½ x 32.2 x (time)² (time)² = 1179 x 2/32.2 = 73.23 time = 8.56 seconds.

The horizontal distance traveled is given by distance = velocity x time. 520 = velocity x 8.56 velocity = 60.75 feet/sec = velocity of ejection = 41 miles per hour minimum. This is a minimum velocity – air resistance will cause the horizontal velocity to decrease. Beams ejected at lower floors from WTC1, or beams that hit other buildings higher up than ground level, have less time to fall, and must therefore travel faster to reach a horizontal distance of 520 feet.

How does expelled air propel these beams with such force? In the official story of 9/11, the only other force available is that of gravity acting vertically downward. A theory that buckling steel columns were severed and ejected with a spring action, a very unlikely occurrence, is not supported by the uniform debris fields and lack of observed rotation of steel beams seen in mid flight on videos. Extensive debris fields with ejected steel columns and sections of aluminum cladding surrounded the demolished towers on all sides for hundreds of feet. A very large proportion of the steel was projected outward. Only explosive force can explain the debris fields.

The official account of 9/11 dismisses this indisputable evidence by entirely ignoring it. The controlled demolition theory, on the other hand, readily explains this evidence. In a controlled demolition of a building, charges are placed so as to break the structure into pieces of manageable size for easy removal by truck. Thus, the steel columns were broken and ejected by explosive force. This evidence alone is quite enough to disprove the official account of 9/11.

How do we explain this? Explosion due to kerosene?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
He also describes the further destruction to the lobby of the north tower well after both planes had already struck.

He also makes a very interesting note about the 2-to-3-inch-thick glass of the lobbies of the towers that was blown out and that it looked like a bomb went off in the lobby.

And as a trained firefighter, he is of the opinion that the towers collapsed by other means than just fire and plane impacts.

So sayeth the evidence as well.

???????????????????????

Huh? The Naudet brothers' video clearly shows the lobbies were well populated when these supposed bombs went off. There were many injuries and people who were severely burned, but noone was actually killed there. Did all the people spontaneously leave the lobby when these bombs went off to get out of the way of the force of the blast? Or, were they these magic super duper thermite that sends shock waves from the blast curving around people like those bullets did in "Wanted"? I don't need to tell you that in the real world, when bomb A (particularly when bomb A is designed to defeat structural steel) goes off with a force strong enough to destroy three inch glass in windows B across the room, person C standing in the way is going to pretty well be converted into bloody goo in the process.

Something really doesn't add up in this scenario...and it comes as no surprise that the part that doesn't add up just happens to be coming from the conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by exponent
Your personal theory is based soley on your imagination BoneZ.

All I have to say is: wow. A simple way anyone can check out for themselves and it's "my" personal theory? Really?

Originally posted by exponent
An elastic wave can and does travel through steel when it is hit.

Nobody is denying this. What you are failing to comprehend is that when it is traveling through the steel column, it begins to dissipate with distance. What you're trying to claim is that if I strike a steel column at the top of the WTC with a sledge hammer, you'll feel it down in the basement. That is completely false and not possible.

Just like the planes impacting the towers would not be felt down in the basement. The "elastic wave" would dissipate almost entirely before reaching the basement. Hence the seismograph recordings were not of the plane impacts, but the explosives detonated in the basement levels at the same time as the plane impacts. Hence why many of the basement levels and lobby had massive destruction.

It would do you some good to read a paper by Dr. Andre Rousseau, PhD., who is a former researcher in geophysics and geology at CNRS (the National Center of Scientific Research of France) and a specialist in acoustic sound waves:

www.911truth.org...

Originally posted by exponent
This is why I know quite a few people with serious wrist injuries after a decade or two working constantly with striking tools.

This statement has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by exponent
Seismologists confirm the effect. I'll take their professional expertise over your personal theory.

No they do not. They're theorizing. Guessing. Come on, it's a simple test anyone can do. You will not feel the full blast of a steel hammer at the other end of a long steel beam because the shockwave dissipates.

Originally posted by exponent
Only a small proportion of the fuel could possibly have burned and we know that because people calculated it rather than guessing as you are.

What do you think calculations are? They made guesses, theories, based on calculations. It's too bad you hold an organization to such high esteem when they've been proven wrong time and time again.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't need to tell you that in the real world, when bomb A (particularly when bomb A is designed to defeat structural steel) goes off with a force strong enough to destroy three inch glass in windows B across the room, person C standing in the way is going to pretty well be converted into bloody goo in the process.

I don't need to tell you that there are plenty of witnesses that were in the lobby that got blown off their feet due to the concussion of the blast:





Almost every person that was in or near the lobby got blown off their feet from the concussion of the blast. The blast(s) caused massive destruction on most of the basement levels and caused people to evacuate the subway due to the heavy smoke down there.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Something really doesn't add up in this scenario...and it comes as no surprise that the part that doesn't add up just happens to be coming from the conspiracy theorists.

What doesn't add up to you actually is coming from people who were there.... And it comes as no surprise that you would call them conspiracy theorists.

They describe what they experienced = "conspiracy theories"
You repeat what the government reports say = "facts"



You make me

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Almost every person that was in or near the lobby got blown off their feet from the concussion of the blast. The blast(s) caused massive destruction on most of the basement levels and caused people to evacuate the subway due to the heavy smoke down there

Lets see- people knocked down

EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION DESTRUCTIVE PEAK PRESSURE
GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE : 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE : 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE : 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99 FATALITIES: 99 PSI

Notice doesnt take much to knock someone down or break a window

Also explain why people in the lobby

1) Smelled kerosene aka Jet Fuel

2) Suffered burn injuries. some fatal. Yet no blast or shapnel injuries

Explain how windows were broken here with no "explosions"

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower."

Windows breaking, plaster falling yet nobody heard any explosions........

How did that happen?

Windows breaking are a sign firefighters are taught to watch for. It signals that the structure is becoming
unstable and beginning to flex or twiist. This action squeezes the windows frames and either causes the
windows to shatter or pop out of their frames

reply to post by thedman


What are you talking about

Originally posted by maxella1
You're the ones chastising people. I think that letter is an insult to the mans intelligence, and since he still has the same opinion about what he lived through even after this letter, I think he has the information but doesn't believe it because it is not what was happening to him. The confusion is because the lies you are defending don't make sense.

Please be very careful about claiming I am defending lies. I take that as a personal insult and these are now completely prohibited here. I think that the letter is perfectly reasonable and believe you are simply taking a partisan position rather than actually considering the situation.

How many times do you need to be shown what the firemen said on scene, on 9/11, on video in plain English "definitely secondary explosions"?

How many times do we need to point out that only a fool would expect an acre wide fire caused by an airliner crash to have no additional sources of burning. Secondary explosions are of course expected, simply opening a door can cause a 'secondary explosion' for reasons I can get into. Having said that, nobody is talking about how they saw explosives and you are trying to imply that all explosions are based on explosives. They are not.

Originally posted by PatriotGames2
The problem is the official story incorporates the "pancake theory". And as talked about by many people - if each of the floors collapsed unto each other until reaching the very bottom A) Where are the core beams? and B) Where are the floors?

What do you mean by 'core beams'? They are in the debris pile, same as the floors.

A lot of it WAS blown into dust, and there is a lot of testimony to the fact that people were only seeing small pieces of phones, computers, etc instead of intact objects. But my point is, there were no floors. There should have been at least 40 - 50 floors stacked up in a pile, AT LEAST, for a 110 floor high-rise skyscraper.

Are you joking? The floors were a total of 4" of concrete, a thin steel pan, and that is it. You expect that to survive falling hundreds of feet with tens of thousands of tons of building debris collapsing upon them? What basis do you have for this belief?

And let's not forget the beams weighing 20 tons or more in some cases, being thrown over 500 feet and into adjacent buildings.

Which doesn't happen in Controlled Demolitions. Only in collapses would this occur.

How do we explain this? Explosion due to kerosene?

No, a building collapse allowing gravity to accelerate the items. Controlled demolitions use copper shaped charges to cut, not to throw steel hundreds of feet. How can you possibly reconcile the idea that it was a controlled demolition other than massive unseen explosions to throw steel everywhere? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All I have to say is: wow. A simple way anyone can check out for themselves and it's "my" personal theory? Really?

Yes BoneZ. You have decided to ignore any numbers or calculations and decide on the effects of impact on steel by intuition. That means it is your personal theory of what happened.

Nobody is denying this. What you are failing to comprehend is that when it is traveling through the steel column, it begins to dissipate with distance. What you're trying to claim is that if I strike a steel column at the top of the WTC with a sledge hammer, you'll feel it down in the basement. That is completely false and not possible.

How have you developed these supernatural powers to assess the behaviour of high speed impacts on thousands of feet of steel? I don't see a single calculation in your post. Are you really telling us that you are capable of somehow guessing the correct values?

You've done this a few times now, decided that science is not really worth its weight and instead just decided what you think the 'right' answer is and insisted that it's the truth. Well I'm afraid that I can't trust your intuition as you have been wrong on every major subject I think I've ever seen you present a strong opinion on. Please present the calculations supporting your claim or retract it.

Do you really think that an unreviewed article on a 911truth domain is somehow massively convincing evidence? 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.

What do you think calculations are? They made guesses, theories, based on calculations. It's too bad you hold an organization to such high esteem when they've been proven wrong time and time again.

Well when you call 'calculations' 'guesses' but your guesses indisputable fact then I question your ability to even remotely assess these claims. The amount of fuel consumed in a fireball of known composition and size is one of the easiest possible calculations to do.

I think everyone can see that your bias has been made absolutely clear here. A calculation done by experts at NIST and published years ago for anyone to review is considered unacceptable to you. Speculation published at a 911 truth domain and never reviewed is considered unarguable and definitely 100% correct.

Prove me wrong BoneZ, show me your calculations or derivations. Either that or admit you are suffering massive confirmation bias please.

reply to post by Varemia


It takes a lot of movie making to make the jet fuel explode out of elevator doors a thousand feet below the level where most of it was already exploding and burning in a fireball.