| Viewing Single Post From: Attack on WTC 1 | |
|---|---|
| Miragememories | May 25 2009, 04:46 PM |
|
Continuation of NK-44's paper.. About Explosions Explosions: Detonations and Deflagrations In general, an explosion is a sudden, violent increase in the volume and release of energy. Usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion causes pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations, if these waves are subsonic. Explosions are categorized as detonations, if they are superonic. The supersonic waves are the ones which are called shock waves. Detonation is a process of supersonic combustion in which a shock wave is propagated forward due to energy release in the reaction zone behind it. In a detonation, the shock wave compresses the material and increases it's temperature to the point of ignition. The ignited material burns behind the shock wave and releases energy that supports the shock propagation. This self-sustained detonation wave is different from a deflagration that propagates at a subsonic speed (i.e., slower than the sound speed of the explosive material itself), and without a shock wave or any significant pressure change. Because detonations generate high pressures, they are usually much more destructive than deflagrations. In engineering, deflagrations are easier to control than detonations. Consequently, they are better suited when the goal is to create a propellant for an object (a bullet in a gun, or a piston in an engine). The force of this expanding gas, is referred to as a "propellant“. Typical examples of deflagrations are; combustion of a gas-air mixture in a gas stove, or the reaction of the fuel-air mixture in an internal combustion engine, and the rapid burning of gunpowder in a firearm. A detonation would result in the destruction of a gun, or the piston of an engine. Therefore explosives like C4, which detonates, are referred to as high-order explosives, whereas explosives like gunpowder are called low-order explosives. Pressures generated by a deflagration increases in confined areas, such as elevator shafts would be in the case of the Twin Towers. Since the elevator shafts were not only confined areas but also the center of the explosion, at least according to the official record, the greatest pressure generated by the jet-fuel explosion would be in the elevator shafts. About jet-fuel Kerosene/jet-fuel does not detonate and does not easily explode. "Jet fuel doesn't explode easily, experts say, and fire would not have spread along airport pipelines. Alleged plot's damage would have been limited The premise is right out of a disaster movie: Ignite the massive fuel tanks required to keep an international airport up and running each day, stand back, and watch a chain reaction of explosions throughout the labyrinth of pipelines running underneath the tarmac. But aviation experts cautioned Saturday that the alleged plot targeting John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York would have faced many hurdles, not least of which is the fact that jet fuel does not easily explode. "The level of catastrophe that may be created is much more limited than most people would expect," said Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport. "The fuel that we are talking about is mostly jet fuel, which, unlike the gasoline most people put into their cars, is not that susceptible to explosion." (LA Times-By Megan Garvey, Times Staff Writer June 3, 2007) As it's stated above, "kerosene is not like gasoline: it is a lubricant, not corrosive, not volatile, and extremely stable in storage. The specific gravity of kerosene is about 0.8, and its ignition point is more than 104 F. If you throw a match into a pool of kerosene it will put out the match. You can hold a match right up to the edge of a teaspoon half full of kerosene and it will not ignite (try that with gasoline and you will need to grow new eyebrows)." http://www.milesstair.com/kero_fuel_primer.html  In order for the right conditions to exist for jet-fuel to explode, there must be the right amount of fuel and the right amount of air. There is a minimum percentage and maximum percentage of fuel/air ratio to achieve such conditions, these are called the lower explosive limit and the upper explosive limit. For jet-fuel A, the lower explosive limit is 0.7%, the upper explosive limit is 5%, therefore in order for a jet-fuel explosion to have occurred in the WTC elevator shafts, there had to have been a mixture of no less then 0.7% fuel, and no more than 5% fuel to air ratio. Any ratio outside of these limits and a jet-fuel air mixture would not explode. The lower and upper explosive limits of jet-fuel do not determine whether fuel will burn, rather, they just determine the conditions required for an explosive fuel air mixture. The fuel certainly could ignite, and there are many examples of witnesses describing fireballs in elevator shafts immediately after the strikes on the WTC on the upper levels. See also; http://www.usor.com/pdfs/msds/fuels/Jet_Fuel_MSDS.pdf Besides powering aircraft, kerosene is commonly used as a heating fuel. "The cleanest burning, lowest odor fuel for any wicked appliance is Low Odor Mineral Spirits. Jet A fuel is extremely close to kerosene and burns well in kerosene heaters, and therefore is the fuel of choice for those who heat with kerosene heaters in many remote areas of Canada and Alaska." http://www.milesstair.com/kero_fuel_primer.html An example of a jet-fuel explosion.  "An airplane belonging to China Airlines Ltd from Taiwan Province bursts into flames after an explosion in Naha on Japan's southern island of Okinawa August 20, 2007. All 165 people on board had escaped safely, officials said." http://flagranny2.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/china-airlines-jet-explodes-upon-landing-in-okinawa/ Watch this video-clip of the explosion (at 0:50). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmKd-buNMVc Looking closely at the people to the right of the front emergency exit and the man beside the airport vehicle near the burning engine, it can be seen that the explosion produced no shockwave. People were not pushed, or blasted away, and no parts of the plane structure were either. (Note that the planes ceiling partly collapsed, but not as direct result of the explosion but the subsequent fires.) The impact-explosion on 9/11  Of course there is the example of 9/11 itself. The explosion at the South Tower, which consumed an estimated 1,000-3,000 gal of jet-fuel, is often referred to as 'tremendous'. But tremendous better describes the psychological impact it had on the viewer rather than properly describing its effect on the building's structure. From the FEMA: "These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture.(...) Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in icroseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris." (FEMA WTC report, chapter 2, 2-21). So, when FEMA states it's uncertainty that the fireballs could have generated enough pressure to blow out the windows in the impact zone, how could defenders of the official version be so certain that these fireballs blew out the windows on the 22nd floor, or the even more massive windows in the lobby? 9/11-Injuries inconsistent with explosives? The notion of the possibility of explosives in the basement is often rejected by supporters of the jet-fuel theory by the argument, that people suffered burns which were inconsistent with the effect of explosives. Mark Roberts, one of the most prominent "debunkers“ of 9/11-skepticism, wrote a long paper (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home) with the intention of refuting the notion that explosive devices were involved. "I've said this before and I'll keep saying it until [WTC janitor William] Rodriguez understands it: if a person was close enough to a demolition charge or large high explosive to be burned by it, he or she would also be blown apart by it." His statement isn't true but a large oversimplification. Effects like burning could accompany with explosive devices. "Explosive devices also create a short-lived pulse of thermal energy. The intense heat may cause burns of the skin or lead to combustion of surrounding materials. If an explosive device contains flammable fuel, the thermal injuries can be more severe and occur at greater distances from the source." (EYE INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH TERRORIST BOMBINGS, ALLEN B. THACH, MD) http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/ophthalmic/OPHch24.pdf "Miscellaneous Blast Effects (Quaternary Blast Injuries): This category of blast trauma includes burns from fire or radiation, crush injury associated with structural collapse, poisoning from carbon monoxide or other toxic products of the explosion, and inhalation of dust or chemicals from the explosion." http://www.storysmith.net/Articles/B...ies%200406.pdf From "Vulnerability of Buildings to Blast Damage and Blast-Induced Fire Damage" by Ronald J. Massa: "When the detonation occurs inside a building and in a confined and fuel-rich space, such as in a parking garage, the hot gases from the detonation cannot expand freely to mix with an ever-increasing volume of cooler air. The shock effects and mechanical damage from the explosion will overturn vehicles, fracture gas tanks, break pipes, and breach walls, exposing a variety of materials to the hot gas cloud. Many of these will ignite, generally on the periphery of the affected space, where the expanding gas causes the least local oxygen deprivation. Thus, suddenly the detonation will spawn many separate fires. From that point on, the building will respond as it would had each of the fires been set with a match. However, if the building were severely damaged by the blast, life safety systems may be incapacitated, gas lines severed, and electrical systems disturbed, all of which will increase the fire vulnerability of the building." (USFA-TR-076/February 1993 , p.106/107) That burnings can accompany explosive devices is evident from the WTC '93 bombing itself: "Quickly returning to the B ramp, I ordered that a 2 1/2-inch hoseline be hand- stretched. The firefighters, meanwhile, had rescued two civilians from the collapsed rubble. Both were severly burned, had suffered lacerations, and were in shock." (USFA-TR-076/February 93, p.25)  (http://www.remm.nlm.gov/blasteffects.htm) The thesis of explosive devices is also often rejected by the notion that no one suffered perforated tympanic membrane (eardrums). The rupture of an eardrum can be caused by a pressure force of 5psi. Isn't the absence of perforated eardrums proof of the absence of explosive devices? No, and for several reasons. Firstly, the injury to the ear is dependent on the orientation of the ear to the blast, and of course, dependent on the location in relation to the center of the explosion. Secondly, people have suffered higher pressure forces, for example lung injuries, without having their eardrums ruptured: "The absence of a perforated tympanic membrane does not exclude pulmonary blast injury". (PERFORATED EAR DRUM FOLLOWING EXPOSURE TO BLAST ADVICE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS, Academic Department of Military Emergency Medicine at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine and the University of Birmingham) http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1217230500341 Another study also states that; "some patients with lung injuries did not have ruptured membranes." (Blast Injuries, Ralph G. DePalma et al.) http://www.simquest.com/HRC-blastNEJM.pdf Lung injuries require at least a pressure force of 15psi, according to some sources, 40psi is "needed for primary pulmonary injury." (The Blast Injured Patient Jeff R. Thurlby, MD) Thirdly, as can be seen later in the chapter on the lobby-damage, people were described having their leg chopped off and their tongue lying on the floor. It is not unreasonable to assume that they may also suffered an injured ear membrane. And finally, the comparison with the blast effects of the '93 WTC bombing does not disprove the existance of explosive devices - quite the opposite. WTC 93 bombing Vs. 9/11-Basement explosion Before we going into the injuries, here's a report about the building-damage: "A van containing explosives was parked on the B-2 level of the underground parking garage in a position adjacent to one of the towers and under the Vista Hotel. At 12:18 p.m., the explosives were detonated causing varying degrees of physical damage on all six basement levels. In the immediate area of the explosion, the floor slabs for two basement levels collapsed onto vital electrical, communications, and domestic water systems equipment for the complex. Further, masonry fire walls and fire doors separating the buildings within the complex were voided by the force of the explosion. The explosion also penetrated vertically into a first-floor public assembly area of the Vista Hotel and shattered several glass partitions that separated the hotel from the lobby area of one of the Center's towers. This penetration of the structures enabled dense, black, super-heated smoke from the explosive materials and the ensuing fire to quickly fill the lobby area and move into numerous elevator shafts." (NFPA Fire investigation report, WTC 93 bombing) The effects of the bomb are bolded. The similarity to the damage in the basement and the lobby on 9/11 is undeniable. Now to the injuries. Besides ruptured eardrums, "most blasts cause at least some ocular injuries.(...)Although the eye constitutes only a small portion of the frontal body surface area, it is very susceptible to fragmentation missiles. Fragments that may cause minimal damage to other parts of the body can cause severe injuries to the globe." (EYE INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH TERRORIST BOMBINGS, ALLEN B. THACH, MD) In the report it can be learned that no cases of eye injuries occured in the '93 bombing: "A notable exception is the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in which explosives were detonated underground and most injuries were therefore due to smoke inhalation, not fragmentation missiles." The study with the title "Mass-Casualty, Terrorist Bombings:Epidemiological Outcomes, Resource Utilization, and Time Course of Emergency Needs (Part I)" provides us with the following table (p.226):  http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf As can be seen, zero percent of the injured in the '93 bombing suffered ruptured eardrums (TM) or eye injuries. For comparison; of those injured in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, 3 percent sustained TM rupture and a 12 percent suffered eye injuries. In the WTC '93 bombing, six people died, but not as a direct consequence of the blast, but due to the collapse of the building structure. ("Most of those who died are believed to have been crushed by the station ceiling“, BBC News) http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm If the presence of perforated eardrums and eye injuries is a required condition for the evidence of explosive devices, then we should erase the 'bomb' in the expression 'WTC '93 bombing'. Unlike the WTC '93 bombing, people were killed on 9/11 as a direct result of blast effects. When it is reported that someone had his leg chopped off, then this clearly indicates a strong blast effect. Blast effects like amputations are commonly refered to as tertiary blast injuries. But these: "are difficult to categorize, since they may be attributable to more than one mechanism. For example, fractures, amputations, intracranial injuries, and solid organ injuries all may be primary, secondary, or tertiary in origin."[color] (Mass-Casualty, Terrorist bombings:Epidemiological Outcomes, Resource Utilization, and Time Course of Emergency Needs (Part I))[/color] http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf Furthermore, "Amputations were relatively uncommon in injured survivors seeking emergency care from any type of bombing, presumably because they correlate with exposure to higher blast energy and immediate death." (Source see above) In the WTC '93 attack, people were also burned and injured by a concussive force - similiar to 9/11. Yet no one would argue that a bomb didn't go off. The fact that people suffered burnings does not disprove explosives. The facts that a leg was blown off and a tongue violently removed provide strong indications against jet-fuel as the cause. Another objection against explosives Another objection raised against the bomb-theory is the fact that people felt, and were pushed, by a strong, hot wind. These reports attempt to debunk an explosive device as cause, because the blast wave generated by it would blow people apart instead of pushing them through the air. But this objection is baseless, since it is confusing the different effects of explosion, namely blast waves with blast winds - the latter being a tertiary blast effect. Here's what the experts have to say: "In general, explosions cause injury via rapidly expanding spherical waves of atmospheric overpressure (blast wave), air displacement (blast wind), and heat." (pg 228) "Tertiary blast injuries are caused by the blast wind, either when it accelerates victims against fixed objects or it differentially accelerates exposed body parts." (pg 225) (Mass-Casualty, Terrorist Bombings) http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf "The explosion of a conventional bomb generates a blast wave that spreads out from a point source. The blast wave consists of two parts — a shock wave of high pressure, followed closely by a blast wind, or air in motion." (pg 43) "Tertiary blast injuries also result from people being thrown into fixed objects by the wind of explosions." (pg 46) (Blast injuries) Tertiary blast injuries result from movement of the human body by the blast wind.(...) When the entire body is set in motion, it may be carried a considerable distance from the blast. (pg 424) (EYE INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH TERRORIST BOMBINGS) Fireballs on 9/11 In the floors underneath the impact zone, where the shafts of multiple elevator banks served as path for jet fuel, people witnessed several fireballs. "(Manu) Dhingra was engulfed in a fireball from the crash of one of the hijacked planes Tuesday and suffered burns over most of his body. Like others who were severely burned by a fire sparked by the jet fuel as the crashed planes turned the buildings into infernos, he was just beginning his work day Tuesday on the 83rd floor of the north tower, the one that was struck first. "All of a sudden, as I was walking down the hallway and I heard a door explode and this large ball of fire just engulfed me," he said from his hospital bed at the Cornell Burn Center where all those burned in the attack are being treated. "I just froze. I didn't do anything. I just stood here." http://www.greatdreams.com/trade_day9.htm Another occupant reports his experience on CNN: "Harry Waizer, severely burned in WTC attack, interviewed by TV host Larry King: I was on my way to work. I worked at Cantor Fitzgerald as well. I was in the elevator. I don't know exactly what floor. Somewhere between the 78th and I imagine the point of impact for the airplane. And the elevator just suddenly rocked. There was an explosion. There was flame. I was trying to beat out the flame. The elevator was plummeting and then righted itself. And then a second fireball, the second one is one that hit me in the face, but the elevator did settle down at the 78th floor. The doors opened. ...Larry King: Was your face burning? Waizer: It wasn't burning. I got hit by a fireball that just -- if you can imagine a barbecue grill with too much gas, that just suddenly explodes, that's what I had. It just hit me in the face, then it was gone." http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/lklw.00.html Those are two examples of people who were directly hit by a fireball, but neither of them experienced any violent blast effect. In addition, there are many reports of fireballs in the higher floors, http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts91-60) none of them indicating a violent blast effect. That is exactly what should be expected. It's important to remember this and compare it to the reports dealing with the damage in the basement and in the lobby. To be continued... MM (for NK-44) |
 |
|
| Attack on WTC 1 · World Trade Center | |
5:42 AM Nov 30
