The Progressive Collapse Challenge

Originally posted by Shroomery
Anyone with any basic knowledge of reality would realize that if 3 towers collapse within a couple of hours, it wouldn't be very hard to reproduce.
There's no science involved here. Common sense.

No Science??? Common Sense??? Sir, I find it difficult to believe that you grasp either. Structural analysis and failure is nothing but PURE SCIENCE and PHYSICS - PERIOD! What common sense should tell you is that the number of variables present in any analysis defies any person's singular ability to simply apply acts of logic, reason and common sense to arrive at any definitive conclusions.

While not an engineer myself, I have worked in the field demonstrating, selling and supporting extremely high-end design and analysis software. I have worked with the likes of Professional Engineers from NASA, Boeing, M-D, Parker Hannifin, Timken, etc... In short, some of the most brilliant engineering minds in the field today. I have explored, both personally and professionally, their opinions on the progressive collapse theory of the WTC on 9/11 and have learned a great deal from them about this. You sir, other than access to the internet and knowledge of search-engine use, apparently know NOTHING about such SCIENCE and PHYSICS. Might I recommend that you leave such discussions to those of us who are knowledgeable of such areas of expertise and then, perhaps, you too will become enlightened with the truth. Deny Ignorance... FOREVER!

So much experiences and yet you fail to explain how a top down demolition would cause a building to tip. But a fire would cause it fall straight down.

I'm sorry but I don't care how may experience you have, if an explanation like that sounds reasonable to you them I very much doubt the quality of your education. After all Bush got his Harvard degree and he can't spell America.

And I still firmly believe that what I said is true. If an event happens three times in a row, under different circumstances (planes hitting vs no planes hitting) and with different buildings, then this shouldn't be hard to reproduce.

THAT is common sense.

Originally posted by bsbray11
1.) To recreate the collapses exactly, yes, you would need a near infinite amount of variables to reproduce every single event that occured.

Fortunately for the challenge, that's not necessary.

To reproduce the main aspects (ie, reproducing column failures using similar stress and heat) is not so difficult to attempt. There are relatively few variables in applying columns in a similar building, in a similar situation to a similar amount of heat and watching the result.

You could have a similar outcome pretty easily doing just that, if progressive collapses are indeed plausible.


2.) So wait - there are people that specialize in doing what you claim is impossible, and what I have seen absolutely no evidence of ever being accomplished outside of NIST labs - at all?

In this statement you lose all credibility with me and show signs of being a disinfo agent. I won't outright call you one, because I won't jump to conclusions so quickly, but the above quote is extremely suspicious to me.

3.) Someone who has "sold engineering and analysis software for many years" and knowing so much about the software should not make the mistake of referencing people "who specialize in actually creating controlled progressive collapses." Maybe you meant controlled collapses in general, but again, this is not a mistake someone who actually knows what they're talking about would make.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

Makes me wonder.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Here, I'll help you "Understand."

1.) Not only necessary but IMPERATIVE! Unless you are somehow a super-computer that is able to specifically indentify those variables which both directly and indirectly influenced the behavior of the collapse, then it become imperative that you replicate ALL of them to as near the actual event as possible. To put this in perspective, you would have literally thousands of material density equations to enter - just to get you started. Secondly, you haven't even begun to address frequency response, stress, strain, all linear and non-linear factors, heat transfer, displacement, laminar turbulence versus resistance, k factors, etc... In short, your cute little model isn't even in the same universe as reality.

2.) Yes there are such people... they are controlled emolition experts and their one and only job is to create a controlled progressive collapse. I am suprised that you are not aware of this as this thread addresses such people in depth. Pics of their work is also readily available in this very thread. Do you know HOW they do their jobs? I'd bet not! They create carefully replicated computer models of the building and do EXACTLY as I am describing to ensure that they execute a nealry flawless progressive collapse! Where you fail is by believing that such demolition is an "Implosion" as it is commonly refered. It is not. It is a progressive collapse because the EXPLOSIONS are aimed at specific structural supports and timed to ensure that they are PROGRESSIVELY causing the failure of such structural members to ensure that the building collapses in a progressive manner upon itself, within it's own footprint.

Originally posted by Shroomery
So much experiences and yet you fail to explain how a top down demolition would cause a building to tip. But a fire would cause it fall straight down.

I'm sorry but I don't care how may experience you have, if an explanation like that sounds reasonable to you them I very much doubt the quality of your education. After all Bush got his Harvard degree and he can't spell America.

And I still firmly believe that what I said is true. If an event happens three times in a row, under different circumstances (planes hitting vs no planes hitting) and with different buildings, then this shouldn't be hard to reproduce.

THAT is common sense.

First you want to insult me, then you want to question my intelligence and my education. After that you attempt to lend credibility to your weak argument by tossing additional ad hominems at President Bush (Which is not even a factor in this discussion) while committing endless fallacies. I'm sorry but I am finished with you and bray!

I never stated that a fire brought down either of those towers, you did! I ackowledged, REPEATEDLY, that a myriad of factors and variables came together that day to create the environment for the progressive collapse of those towers. So please, do not put words in my mouth!

ON a final note, Building 7 was "Pulled." Know what that means? It was a controlled demolition. That's right! Of the 3 buildings that collapsed that day, building 7 was an admitted controlled demolition.

Now, many highly paid and extremely intelligent people have studied this exhaustively and found it beyond plausible, well into the realm of highly likely, that these building were felled by the combined forces of the impact, the heat and subsequent progressive faulires of both materials and structural elements. I am truly sorry that you cannot (Or will not) wrap your shallow mind around this. I'm done!

Kozmo, all that data is needed when an event is a freak occurance.
3 Buildings came down that day, wich shows it wasn't.

Therefor, if you apply roughly the same structural integrity and damage to a range of buildings, one of them would eventually come down like one of those towers. That is the challenge ..

Don't make it any harder then it is on yourself, just show us a progressive collapse on any kind of building.

If you tell us it's impossible to reproduce, we can only assume one thing, that you believe we are right.

Originally posted by kozmo
ON a final note, Building 7 was "Pulled." Know what that means? It was a controlled demolition. That's right! Of the 3 buildings that collapsed that day, building 7 was an admitted controlled demolition.

Even better, you're "one of those" that believe someone went inside WTC 7 that day and placed demolitions while there was a fire raging!
I'm not even gonna begin to explain how little sense that makes.

kozmo, I'd like to apologize if we come across as a little hostile or curt sometimes. This battle has been going on for quite some time now and emotions, egos and tempers are stretched. You have entered in the middle of the fray and don't deserve to be treated such. Just be aware that what we dish out is equal to or less than what we have received.

Originally posted by kozmo
ON a final note, Building 7 was "Pulled." Know what that means? It was a controlled demolition. That's right! Of the 3 buildings that collapsed that day, building 7 was an admitted controlled demolition.

Firstly I'd like to note that there has never been an official admittance of a controlled demolition of WTC7, although the owner Larry Silverstein has unofficially admitted to it on tape. His statement is still denied to this day by the likes of HowardRoark as referring to controlled demo of the building. If Silverstein had said, "We blew the building up!", Howard would tell you he was referring to air being blown/pumped up into the building to cool the sweaty firemen down or something... but hey, that's his job and it is kind of charming in a Rainman sort of way.

Could you clarify what your personal assessment of the demolition of WTC7 is? Do you believe that the demolition was set up on the day and only after the attacks happened, or do you believe that the demolition was set up earlier? Because most people consider the demolition of WTC7 to be the biggest smoking gun of all, since the charges could not have been set up in a building with fires that the FDNY supposedly couldn't control, hence the demo must have been set up beforehand, which therefore proves at best, foreknowledge, and at worst, engineering of the entire events.

[edit on 2005-8-25 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by Shroomery
Howard you're just too much, everything that is presented at you bounced back like you're some know it all or have all the experts working for you.
"I don't think that" "That's been debunked" "That proof is fraudulent".

And then you come up with some shoddy picture of equipment ? Why not post the heavier version someone showed in a reply to yours ? Would it mean your fireball story doesn't hold up ?

Ah yes, Howards little unassuming 40-ton press.

In that original thread i pointed out another 40-ton press (one of many different types, just an example showing how big some can be):

Uh, that is a "press brake."

it is used to bend large sheets of metal in a fabrication shop.

Uh, that is a "press brake."

it is used to bend large sheets of metal in a fabrication shop.

And I'm willing to bet it weighs nowhere near 40tons. Maybe 3000lb +/-

[edit on 8/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

Originally posted by kozmo
While not an engineer myself, I have worked in the field demonstrating, selling and supporting extremely high-end design and analysis software. I have worked with the likes of Professional Engineers from NASA, Boeing, M-D, Parker Hannifin, Timken, etc... In short, some of the most brilliant engineering minds in the field today. I have explored, both personally and professionally, their opinions on the progressive collapse theory of the WTC on 9/11 and have learned a great deal from them about this. You sir, other than access to the internet and knowledge of search-engine use, apparently know NOTHING about such SCIENCE and PHYSICS. Might I recommend that you leave such discussions to those of us who are knowledgeable of such areas of expertise and then, perhaps, you too will become enlightened with the truth. Deny Ignorance... FOREVER!

Bear with me here; I'm going to try to prove a point.

Just for the sake of argument, I declare myself God.

As God, I know for certain that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down by demolition. No more arguments, no more facts.. I know better than you because I'm God and I know what happened, and how much the evil bastards that run our country are willing to do to get what they want. End of story. No more discussion.

Do you think that's a reasonable excuse to stop using evidence? Even if I am God, are you going to stop thinking and blindly accept whatever I say?

Well, you shouldn't.

By the same token, saying that you have talked to so and so experts from such and such a place that believe this or that, is not a reasonable excuse to stop using evidence that we can all access and discuss ourselves.

This is a level playing field here. We can all post evidence and make arguments for and against each other by ourselves. You may claim to be more authoritative than others, but it should not matter because you are just as obligated as everyone to post evidence to back up what you say, or at least make specific, science-based arguments instead of solely using disinfo tactics as a way of responding to others.

If you guys try to avoid posting evidence by just telling us how authoritative you are, I might actually start calling myself God just to quickly bring matters to an end.

Originally posted by kozmo
1.) Not only necessary but IMPERATIVE! Unless you are somehow a super-computer that is able to specifically indentify those variables which both directly and indirectly influenced the behavior of the collapse, then it become imperative that you replicate ALL of them to as near the actual event as possible. To put this in perspective, you would have literally thousands of material density equations to enter - just to get you started. Secondly, you haven't even begun to address frequency response, stress, strain, all linear and non-linear factors, heat transfer, displacement, laminar turbulence versus resistance, k factors, etc... In short, your cute little model isn't even in the same universe as reality.

You're missing a very critical point here.

It is not necessary to recreate the demolitions, er, collapses, precisely and down to every twist of every beam and the movement of every particle of dust. That would be near impossible, with such an astronomical amount of variables required.

This may be an exaggeration of what you were suggesting, but use it as an example to contrast this:

It would not take nearly as many variables to recreate a simulated WTC model with plane damage and columns being heated to a given temperature.

If you did that sort of simulation, you can simply watch what happens. If it results in a progressive collapse, then fine. I don't think it will. But it would not take any super-mega-huge number of variables to do that. NIST could have easily done it with the millions of dollars they were allotted for testing.

2.) Yes there are such people... they are controlled emolition experts and their one and only job is to create a controlled progressive collapse. I am suprised that you are not aware of this as this thread addresses such people in depth. Pics of their work is also readily available in this very thread.

The pdf linked to in this thread was from a department of Penn State University.

www.ptc.psu.edu...

Are these the guys that study progressive collapses for a living?

My original remark still stands as far as I know. I'll retract it when you find such a group.

Do you know HOW they do their jobs? I'd bet not! They create carefully replicated computer models of the building and do EXACTLY as I am describing to ensure that they execute a nealry flawless progressive collapse! Where you fail is by believing that such demolition is an "Implosion" as it is commonly refered. It is not. It is a progressive collapse because the EXPLOSIONS are aimed at specific structural supports and timed to ensure that they are PROGRESSIVELY causing the failure of such structural members to ensure that the building collapses in a progressive manner upon itself, within it's own footprint.

Er, uh.. You just sort of backed up our case on that one.

Thanks, I guess.

HowardRoark wrote:
Do you have any idea just how large the WTC lobbies were? Almost an acre in size. Did the Naudet video cover every single area of the lobby? No.

Your witness stated:
"The WHOLE lobby was soot and black...EVERY sprinkler head was going off...EVERYTHING was sooted in the lobby."

Somehow his testimony differs a little from your inference that these conditions were limited to a small area of the lobby. And I was under the impression that if there were a "giant fireball" in the lobby which incinerated and melted people beyond recognition and blew up cars outside the building, that the sprinklers would be linked and would go off in the entire lobby, not just in an isolated pocket. So which was it, a Godzilla fire breath setting "every sprinkler head" off, or only in a small out-of-view section of the lobby?

You probably didn't take a look at the video so I'll post some grabs for you.



Firefighter entering the lobby. See the marble sheeting cracked and blown off the wall? And it's nowhere near an elevator door. But where's the fire, smoke and soot damage from the fireball that supposedly blew these marble sheets off the wall?



Closer view of the marble damage.



Here's the lobby floor. See all the dust? But no sprinklers going off. Dry as a bone. According to your witness's testimony, these firefighters should be wading through inches of water from the sprinklers going off everywhere.



Main lobby desk. No soot, no smoke.



Look at that window. It's been shattered by some force, but I don't see any fire damage. Do you?



Firefighters standing around waiting for orders. I don't see them running to help burning people.



More windows shattered, but no fire damage, no soot.



A view out of the windows. The fireball which supposedly blew these windows out and ignited cars on fire, somehow didn't touch these little green bushes.



Here's the money-shot of the expanse of the lobby. It's blurry because the camera is in motion, but you can see much clearer on the video. Do you see any burnt people? Soot? Smoke damage? Sprinklers going off? People panicked by the hellfire of burning jet fuel which just roared through the lobby? What about smoke? Ever had a piece of toast get stuck in the toaster and fill the whole kitchen up with smoke in a matter of seconds? But somehow, your "giant fireball" didn't leave one tendril of smoke drifting around the lobby.

Then you quote this witness, Peter Blaich, and his melted security guard:

...What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.
There was a lady there screaming that she didn’t know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.
That’s the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. I’m assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint.

Why does this guy not mention the sprinklers, the soot, fire and smoke damage that your earlier witness mentioned? Don't you think a firefighter would notice this?

And this guy, Steve Modica:

So we started to go in towards the elevator bank area and just about every elevator bank had its doors blown off. They were just empty shafts, a lot of glass around, a lot of marble, a lot of granite off the walls, sheetrock down, some traction cable, scorch marks in a few elevator banks. No doors, no doors. The doors were blown off. Some of them were in the shafts, some of them were in the lobby. You had to walk over them

All he mentions is some scorch marks.

So where is the fire damage that blew those windows out and destroyed the marble sheeting.

I'm all for believing witness testimony and I'm still undecided on the fireball in the lobby issue, but when witnesses' stories don't corroborate with each other, nor with the visual evidence, then something is not right.


But what about the path of the jet fuel? Here's the elevator layout for the towers:



The plane crashed into WTC1 at the 93rd floor, and WTC2 at the 79th. Only one elevator shaft links that floor to the lobby. If jet fuel travelled all the way down to the lobby and blew out windows and exploded cars, then why, in footage of WTC2 when it was hit, didn't we see windows blow out on other levels further up that also were connected by elevator shafts to the impact zone, and closer as well? If your fireball traveled all the way down this single shaft and blew up a part of the lobby not visible on the Naudet video, then what blew up the marble and the glass and created all that dust that we DO see in the video?

Maybe this guy was hiding in the basement levels and Larry Silverstein woke him from his slumber by digging too deep for Mithril.

external image

But hey, at least THIS event is reproducible with a computer simulation.



YOUR...RUNAWAY PANCAKE THEORY...SHALL NOT PASS!!



So, any word on reproducing all of these amazing, unprecedented, super-duper pancake collapses?

[edit on 2005-8-25 by wecomeinpeace]

The whole problem with this argument is that nothing can be proved indefinatly. Sure, people can make nifty models, groups of experts can get together and throw together a nifty report, and engineers can theorize a million different outcomes... even demolition... but they all, (even NIST), admit to the absence of crucial evidence. (IE: fire intensity, steel samples, residue testing, structural integrity, etc)

But with the absence of this evidence you're talking about, we're all sorta left in the dark. The only evidence we have that is not tarnished is pictures, videos, and recordings. And a very minute pile of steel..

With the absence of this evidence, anyone with a slight understanding of building structures can come up with "evidence" to fill in the missing evidence. These theorized bits of "evidence" make sense, and are plausible, but not proveable. Just like the theorize evidence that organizations like NIST have come up with... it's plausible, but not proveable. It goes both ways for both sides..

Just read the NIST report and you'll see like 20 pages of disclaimers stating they theorized the fire placement, the steel integrity, the structural damage.. how? By looking at pictures.

Me, you, and everyone else will never know for sure how the buildings fell. The evidence that we need to prove or disprove our theories have been quietly tucked away in the dark top secret cabinets of our untrustworthy government.

We can debate until our faces are blue (and we have, just look around) and still not gain any ground whatsoever. ..

*Very few theories have been proven, if any.
*Very few myths have been disproven, if any.

(*Regardless of how well researched or argued any of the cases on this message board have been debated, I still consider them all unsolved regardless of what "authority" presented them.)

Regardless if a team of experts got together, or a team of conspiracy geeks like ourselves get together, there will always be an absence of data and evidence mixed in with a slew of misinformation from both sides.

So why are we still arguing this? Honestly, I just don't understand.. I've been following these threads very closely, and every so often chimed in to throw around some ideas and/or opinions.. but we've been arguing this for almost 4 years now, and we've still gotten no where. We all know (both sides) that this whole ordeal is shady and covered in secrets.. but theres nothing we can do if we can't prove without a sense of doubt what we're trying to prove.. and we can't do that.

And before I go, I just want to throw in my last ditch efforts of research into this topic. Regardless of how well it may be researched on the internet, alot of people refuse to talk about this subject. I spent the last 3 months sending out (literally) almost 300 emails to structural engineers, demolition experts, steel experts, and skyscraper construction companies.. hell, I even emailed the WTC architect..

Of those odd 300 emails I sent, I recieved not one response.

I also want to publicly apologize for my 'attitude' regarding certain people's opinions lately. I've just hit my 'boiling point' on this subject, and have been yanked from one side to another so many times, that it's all really starting to get to me.

Originally posted by QuietSoul
The whole problem with this argument is that nothing can be proved indefinatly. Sure, people can make nifty models, groups of experts can get together and throw together a nifty report, and engineers can theorize a million different outcomes... even demolition... but they all, (even NIST), admit to the absence of crucial evidence. (IE: fire intensity, steel samples, residue testing, structural integrity, etc)

I agree totally and 100% with what you're saying here.

All we have done so far, on either camp, is theorize. Both of our sides have our theories, but we need to test them somehow. That's the importance of this thread. It offers an opportunity to put these ideas to the test. I believe it's possible to simulate a WTC under similar conditions and see what the results are. We should at least try.

And I apologize for my asshole outbursts as well. Deep down, everyone here knows that we all love each other, despite how mean we can be.

And Howard also loves money very much.

I'm just picking, of course. Maybe. heh. weee

Reproducing an elevator shaft explosion is actually well within our abilities actually..

With a some PVC pipe (or square tube), some thin glass, and some thin granite pieces (all in respected ratios) we could probably reproduce the effects of a fuel "burst" down the tube into a small box with tiny glass windows and granite walls..

Of course, I don't have the ability to determine just how thin the glass/granite would need to be, or how long of a tube in porportion to the "box" is needed.. or hell, even the amount of fuel to use.. but if someone is really bored and has a few bucks to blow, they should look into this..

(I'm willing to assume the tiny glass plates used on microscope sample covers would be thin enough)

Shrug, just an idea.. would be fun actually.. blowing out some tiny windows and inspecting for soot..

You have voted QuietSoul for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Well, I'd just like to say that was one of the most honest and gracious posts I've read in a long time in this debate, and sums up many of my own feelings very well.

So why are we still arguing this? Honestly, I just don't understand..

For me it's because after surveying all the evidence, I am convinced that elements within the US government murdered thousands of their own citizens in cold blood for reasons unfathomable and used it as a justification for false wars, and they will likely do it again. The first time I watched the towers go down I cried for the people inside them. Years later when I realized the truth of the matter, I cried again as if it were that same day all over again. I cannot sit and idly watch as such a crime is whitewashed. I'm not here to fight with Roark, I'm here to reach the as yet undecided who are reading this and other threads on the issue. If by my own meager efforts I help to wake up just one person to the truth of this heinous act, then I can at least feel that I have done something worthwhile and added to the right cause in some way. If enough people are woken up, then maybe, just maybe, the next incident can be averted.

Again, excellent post, QuietSoul.

[edit on 2005-8-25 by wecomeinpeace]

Mike Pecoraro and Arti made their way out of Tower One and went to Tower Two. They encountered a crowd of people standing outside the tower, not knowing what had happened. Apparently, they had witnessed a fireball come through the lobby after the second airplane had struck that tower, but they were entering directly from the subway underground and had as yet, no idea of what was happening.

What followed was unlike anything I have ever experienced, or could imagine experiencing; the only thing that comes close is the movie Die Hard. When that plane blew through upstairs the repercussions only took about 25 seconds, but it all seemed in slow motion to me, as if I was watching myself on a movie screen. All of the oxygen was sucked out of the building and my lungs (like being in a vacuum). I felt doomed because the turnstile exiting the elevator bank would not unlock for me to get out and run for the revolving doors leading out of the lobby and into the mall under the plaza level. I could not have known at that panic-filled moment, but that locked-up turnstile would save my life. Instead I'm thinking, "This is where I will die," because I can hear an explosion roaring downward inside the building. Yet somehow I looked over to see that the end turnstile wraps around a support beam forming about a two-square-foot space, but there is only about six inches to squeeze through between the end of the turnstile and wall beam. Something inside me told me to get in there. I'm about 100 pounds soaking wet, so I pressed myself through and balled up facing the support beam with the steel barrier wrapped around my back giving me a little protected cubby hole.

This is when the explosion came.

It progressed down the building, breaking the windows as it went; the entire building was groaning, an unnatural, unearthly sound, much like a can squeezing, or cracking uncooked spaghetti. By the time it reached the lobby, the marble veneer was cracking and falling off the walls; the chandeliers shattered on the floors along with the plaster ceiling, and the force imploded in at about 50 mph, pulling metal, balled safety glass, and other material with it. The pipes were bursting over my head and dense materials were flying around me as if they were being pureed in a blender. In the next instant came a horrible noise and a flash of extreme heat and light blown directly over my head. I concluded later in the day that this was from the huge airplane fireball sent down the 78-110 elevator shaft that exploded out into the lobby, and blew around the walls and curled into the center vestibule where I was taking cover. The third and last explosion occurred when a huge chunk of burning wreckage fell to Liberty Street, which runs parallel along the south side of the South Tower, and crashed through the building into the lobby behind me, bringing metal, glass, marble and revolving doors with it.

www.rightnation.us...

Early on the morning of September 11, 2001, Lauren Manning-a wife, the mother of a ten-month-old son, and a senior vice president and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald-came to work, as always, at One World Trade Center. As she stepped into the lobby, a fireball exploded from the elevator shaft, and in that split second her life was changed forever.

Lauren was burned over 82.5 percent of her body.

www.randomhouse.com...

Five victims of the World Trade Center attack on September 11 spent time recovering at The Burn Center at Saint Barnabas. All of the survivors were burned by flash fires that traveled down elevator shafts and engulfed the lobby of the North Tower after the first plane hit. The five individuals were all treated and eventually released, and three of the victims agreed to be interviewed by various local and national media.

Long Island resident Kenneth Summers, 51, a technical support analyst for Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, was pushing through a revolving door of the World Trade Center when the lobby in front of him ignited. The blast hurled him backward through glass and deposited him outside. Mr. Summers, who underwent a number of skin graft operations on his arms and fingers, was helped to safety by a stranger and transported by ferry to Jersey City and then to Saint Barnabas.

Brandon Smith, 39, was trapped in a revolving door minutes after the airline crash. A fireball that came down an elevator shaft exploded into the lobby and scalded the Mountain Lakes resident. Mr. Smith’s condition was initially perilous—he was on a respirator for a week for smoke inhalation damage—and he underwent numerous skin graft operations to repair his hands and ears. Upon his release, Mr. Smith told his story to an audience of fourth and fifth graders at Cedar Grove School as a way to thank the students who had written get-well cards for the five World Trade Center victims at Saint Barnabas.

www.sbhcs.com...


From Jules Naudet:

From the very beginning the devastation was apparent. Smoke was pouring out of the tower, and evidently jet fuel had run down the elevator shaft, creating a fireball in the lobby. People were severely burned and all the windows had been blown out.

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Reproducing an elevator shaft explosion is actually well within our abilities actually..

With a some PVC pipe (or square tube), some thin glass, and some thin granite pieces (all in respected ratios) we could probably reproduce the effects of a fuel "burst" down the tube into a small box with tiny glass windows and granite walls..

Of course, I don't have the ability to determine just how thin the glass/granite would need to be, or how long of a tube in porportion to the "box" is needed.. or hell, even the amount of fuel to use.. but if someone is really bored and has a few bucks to blow, they should look into this..

(I'm willing to assume the tiny glass plates used on microscope sample covers would be thin enough)

Shrug, just an idea.. would be fun actually.. blowing out some tiny windows and inspecting for soot..

Sounds like you want to make a spud gun to me




Notice how these work not by creating a giant flaming fireball, but by using a small fuel air explosion to create a pressure pulse.

One more:

On that awful day, Debbie made the decision to visit the Credit Union which
was in Trade Center. According to the accounts I have heard, Debbie was in
the lobby waiting for an elevator when AA Flight 11 hit on 93. The jet fuel
from the plane poured down the elevator shafts. Owing to the way the
elevators are laid out, I don't understand how the fuel got into the
elevator that she was waiting for. There are / (were) "Sky Lobbies" on 44
and on 78. So to go above those floors, you took an express elevator to the
appropriate sky lobby and then transferred to a local elevator. The
elevator machinery was located on the floors above the sky lobbies; only a
very few shafts continued all the way up. Anyway, apparently she was in the
lobby, the elevator shaftway doors opened and a fireball hit her with full
force. She survived and was taken to a hospital with 90% burns. After
lingering for about 50 days she died.

www.engr.psu.edu...


As for the issue of how the fuel fell all the way down, as you can see from this layout, the local elevator banks were adjacent to the express elevator banks.



Also, in tall high-rise buildings like this, the banks are generally interconnected to allow air pressures to equalize when the elevators move up and down.

Furthermore, there were four express elevators and one freight elevator that ran the full height of the building.


[edit on 25-8-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by QuietSoul

Uh, that is a "press brake."

it is used to bend large sheets of metal in a fabrication shop.

And I'm willing to bet it weighs nowhere near 40tons. Maybe 3000lb +/-

[edit on 8/25/2005 by QuietSoul]

The 40 tons part refers to the capacity of the hydraulic ram.

This is also a 40 ton press



Building engineers generally use it to remove and seat bearings on fan pullys, pumps etc.