It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Explosions - Bottom floor WTC

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
No, Howard, I don't believe that's correct. NIST states all vertical shafts were enclosed by 2 hour fire rated material (gypsum board) to prevent smoke or fire spread. So neighboring elevator shafts would not have been open to one another.




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Are you talking about banks, or individual hoistways?

Each hoistway in a bank is definitely open to the other hoistways in the bank.

Whether separate banks are open to each other is a good question. You may be right, but I think that there were openings in order to control air pressure issues.

Where is Sauron when you need him?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
So which bank of elevators went into the basements from the impact floors of WTC1, HowardRoark?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


How do you explain away what USA today reported after talking to elevator mechanics who worked in the towers?


www.usatoday.com...

Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.




I explain it this way. They speculated and got it wrong. It doesn't matter what an elevator mechanic who wasn't there that day and wasn't checking the shafts for smoke or fire as to say about what they THINK happened.




Is it possible to pinpoint what elevators contained people who were burned? Then we would know some of the elevator shafts which were exposed to burning fuel.


I think we can to a limited extent. And I'm more than willing to help compile a database of knowledge on the various elevators.




Oh and BTW, if that image was meant to be taken literally than it would show a lot more elevators, and all of them would be in the core.

Notice that it doesn't show the stacked routes, that image is just an example.


NO it is NOT. I stated when I posted that it is literal for the vertical configuration of the elevators. If you take any given local elevator in that graphic you can assume there are five more just like it running into the page, but the veritical configuration in that graphic matches the textual description of the set up exactly.




Also note what is reported in another USA Today article about the survivors.


www.usatoday.com...

They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.

Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.




Thank you! There's another elevator shaft we can eliminate as being a possible conduit to an FAE exploding/collapsing B4.
(See if you can get the actual elevator ID on that one.)



So we do know that burning fuel was traveling in the shafts.


Yes, we do know that at least one elevator that traveled to the lobby had "cascading rivulets of burning fuel" - it would appear that would be have to be freight car #6 because there is no other option as far as I know. Car 50 cannot be used because Mr. Griffith was in it and he did not report cascading fire nor was he burned. So that leaves Car #6. There were no other express or freight elevators that went from the Lobby to above floor 78.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you talking about banks, or individual hoistways?

Each hoistway in a bank is definitely open to the other hoistways in the bank.

Whether separate banks are open to each other is a good question. You may be right, but I think that there were openings in order to control air pressure issues.

Where is Sauron when you need him?


Okay, so you're saying the six elevators in Zone I (which would be concourse to floor 40) that serviced say - floors 9 to 16 - would have shafts that were all open to each other laterally. I might buy that because if it were built that way that wouldn't necessary cause fire or smoke to spread to other floors (i.e. all six elevators would have the same floors accessed.

Now, let's take the bank of six elevators in the same zone that serviced say - floors 17 to 20something - I am taking the NIST report to mean that the bank of six elevators servicing 9 to 16 would be isolated from the bank of elevators that service 17 to 20 in order to prevent smoke and fire spreading to additional floors.

I would agree with that interpretation.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Yeah, I forgot about that, Val. And we know that FAEs and liquid jet fuel don't mix. I think the ratio is a LOT of air to a much smaller amount of fuel, and it has to be spaced properly, an aerosol, not a liquid, to ignite to create an FAE. Liquid just catches on fire and burns.

So if 50 experienced no fire, fireball or any overpressures, and yet burning jet fuel fell to the lobby, and car 6 was the only other elevator, then, unless FURTHER information is uncovered, then we have a good idea that neither one of the relevant elevators experienced an FAE that went into the basements and destroyed a machine shop, blew out concrete and etc.


And more food for thought: How does an FAE that travels down 1000+ feet of elevator shaft (without blowing out the shaft itself) destroy a MACHINE SHOP, destroy concrete, a fire door, etc., when the aluminum panels only ~50 ft. away from the ignitions weren't even blown off!? Those panels weren't solidly connected or anything, they were FASTENED.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

For vapor cloud explosion there is a minimum ratio of fuel vapor to air below which ignition will not occur. Alternately, there is also a maximum ratio of fuel vapor to air, at which ignition will not occur. These limits are termed the lower and upper explosive limits. For gasoline vapor, the explosive range is from 1.3 to 6.0% vapor to air, and for methane this range is 5 to 15%.


www.fas.org...

With liquid jet fuel, obviously the ratio is not going to be 13:1000 or 3:50 for any appreciable volume of air. You'd maybe get it by lucky chance for some inches here and there, within small time frames, in which it would have to be lighted, but even then couldn't carry far. Liquid jet fuel falling through air is WAY too much fuel to air for an FAE.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

I explain it this way. They speculated and got it wrong. It doesn't matter what an elevator mechanic who wasn't there that day and wasn't checking the shafts for smoke or fire as to say about what they THINK happened.



You have yet to demonstrate that they got it wrong, and they did more than speak to one elevator mechanic. Here it is again what they did to research this peice.


www.usatoday.com...

USA TODAY made an intensive effort over the past six months to determine what happened to the World Trade Center elevators. Reporters interviewed more than 50 people who were in elevators at the time the jets hit or moments before. The newspaper also reviewed 2,500 pages of accounts written by survivors and reports in other media outlets, examined architectural plans and spoke to elevator experts and mechanics who worked at the Trade Center.


Something tells me they know what they are talking about.

What researching have you done that makes your opinion better than theirs?

Sure that's what they THINK happened, they did the research to back it up, you have yet to demonstrate why we should believe what you THINK happened.


Please explain how the local elevators in the lower zone were damaged if they were isolated from the rest of the elevators.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind



Please explain how the local elevators in the lower zone were damaged if they were isolated from the rest of the elevators.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by LeftBehind]


Based on the information that has been provided in this thread that clearly shows your news report was wrong, and that there wasn't any physical way the lower zones could have been damaged, I think it would be a lot more entertaining if you try to explain how the local elevators in the lower zone were damaged. Because it has been established they were isolated from the rest of the elevators at the impact point.

So get it after it.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I say we all try and figure out:

1. What elevators were operational after impact.
2. What elevators had survivors.
3. What elevators had burn victims.
etc., etc.

I guess for us to get all this put together would be hard if not impossible being that we or noone else knows. It would be nice though to put together what we CAN find out. Anyone try and contact USAToday yet? Since they did so much research already, wouldn't it be prudent to ask them what they found out? Just a suggestion.

I know, I could. But in my defense, I am in the middle of studying for a huge test for my career and will not have a minute to spare until April. I spend way too much time on this site as it is.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
No problem Val, since the only thing that says they were isolated is you and a few others opinions.

The NIST report does not say they were isolated from each other. No matter how you twist quotes, it clearly does not say this.

The lower elevators were damaged, and fire reached the lobby and the basement.

Obviously the elevators were not isolated to the point that the flames from the impact explosion could not reach throughout the building.

Good science is changing your hypothesis to fit the data.

Bad science is changing the data to fit your hypothesis.

All of the elevators were in the core right next to each other.



That side image is obviously not a literal interpretation as it shows elevators outside of the core.

Most if not all of the elevators were damaged by the impact.

NIST reports that some local shafts were stacked up.

With multiple elevators serving the whole building except the basement, and at least two elevators, but most likely more, going into the basement and higher, it is not a stretch to see the fireball from the impacts reaching the basements.

And that is the most likely scenario that encompasses the damage to the lobbies, the damage in the basement, and the multiple reports of burn victims from flames shooting out of the elevator shafts. And it accounts for the reports of people on fire emerging at the lobby.

Are we instead supposed to believe that the government not only laced the building with explosives to cause a controlled demolition, but also planted fire bombs in the basement and elevators for no reason but to kill and maim more people?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That side image is obviously not a literal interpretation as it shows elevators outside of the core.


Hmm...maybe I was wrong in interpretting that picture. I thought it was just the core and not the entire building? If it is the entire building, how can we trust the NIST for anything. That is very misleading if that is suppossed to be the entire building. If you look at the scale of the elevators compared to the "entire building" of that pick, the elevators would be like 20 feet wide.


And that is the most likely scenario that encompasses the damage to the lobbies, the damage in the basement, and the multiple reports of burn victims from flames shooting out of the elevator shafts. And it accounts for the reports of people on fire emerging at the lobby.


It still doesn't explain the damage in the basement levels. Fire doesn't cause 4 inch thick marble to come off it's supports. Fire doesn't cause mechanical rooms and parking garages to be obliterated.


Are we instead supposed to believe that the government not only laced the building with explosives to cause a controlled demolition, but also planted fire bombs in the basement and elevators for no reason but to kill and maim more people?


No, but the explosions could have caused the same thing with no need for "extra" fire bombs"



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

No, but the explosions could have caused the same thing with no need for "extra" fire bombs"



So they set off a bunch of explosives an hour before the collapse?

What purpose could that possibly serve?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What purpose could that possibly serve?


How about weakening the structure enough for latter explosives to do their job? You do know that in a controlled demolition they have bombs in sequence? Just because it didn't happen all at once like a regular controlled demolition doesn't mean it wouldn't work the same way. Also, what better way to mask an explosion in the base than to have it go off when a plane impacts?



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
For the official people who keep questioning about things. Don't you think the people who planned this have already thought about these things? I mean if you and I can think of it, people who are more brilliant than us have thought of these things years before we even have that little thought in our .s. I keep saying, if I've thought of it, at least a hundred other people have thought the same thing.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Good science is changing your hypothesis to fit the data.

Bad science is changing the data to fit your hypothesis.



And bad business is changing some one's statements to fit your argument against them...which you have done. I never said even once that the graphic can be taken literally for the LATERAL placement of the elevators in the building. I have stated twice, and have been careful to qualify my statement, that it can be taken literally for the VERTICAL placement of the elevators.

And I'm not sure why you're asking me about the government placing bombs. Not once in any thread any where have I ever stated I believe the government placed bombs in those buildings. I'm assuming that was some attempt to make me look "weird" or some such because I'm arguing these points with you???

So enough with you twisting my words and twisting my intent, ok?

Now - back to the elevator shaft mapping project I'm committed to.

We have to add 2 more possible elevator shafts that could allow communication from the impact zone to the Concourse Level. There were 2 express elevators that stopped at no intermediate floors but ran from Concourse to Windows on the World in WTC 1 and there were 2 express elevators that stopped at no intermediate floors but ran from Concourse to the Observation Deck in WTC 2. So while these elevators cannot be used as the conduit for damage on the B4 level or Floor 22, they could have been the means by which damage was incurred on the Lobby level.

So now we have Car #6, and these 2 express elevators that communicate from top to Concourse.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And I'm not sure why you're asking me about the government placing bombs. Not once in any thread any where have I ever stated I believe the government placed bombs in those buildings. I'm assuming that was some attempt to make me look "weird" or some such because I'm arguing these points with you???


Why does it have to be that the government placed the bombs...if there were any that is. My opinion is that if there were any, they could have been placed by Al-Queda operatives or the Mossad. As far as the government covering it up, my opinion is that they don't want to admit that the terrorists out smarted them again after '93. So, they want to CTA so to speak.

Edit: Valhall, who was the guy that got caught with a fake driver's license and a WTC pass? Wasn't he a known terrorist? I swear, one of these days, I'm going to have to start a database of all the stuff you have researched. Thanks for all your time doing this.

Sorry to go off topic.

[edit on 11/10/2006 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Edit: Valhall, who was the guy that got caught with a fake driver's license and a WTC pass? Wasn't he a known terrorist? I swear, one of these days, I'm going to have to start a database of all the stuff you have researched. Thanks for all your time doing this.

Sorry to go off topic.

[edit on 11/10/2006 by Griff]


Who Signed Sakher Hammad's WTC Basement Level Pass?: Who Murdered Katherine Smith?



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Finally found the lateral lay-out of the elevator shafts. This is from this NIST presentation:

wtc.nist.gov...



Okay, so let's talk about the local elevators. As you can see the 24 local elevators in each vertical zone ran across the middle of the core in banks of three. The banks of three were separated by a distance large enough to allow people to come and go from the elevators. It looks like only one pair of 3-elevator banks were back to back (i.e. had a common wall). So, taking Howard's theory that the local elevator shafts could have had one lateral common shaft, we have it reduced to three elevators per common shaft, except for the possibility that there were six elevators in one shaft. Now this diagram seems to indicate walls separating each shaft, but that's just a graphic indication, so it's not conclusive.

The question now becomes, were there dividing walls between the express elevator shafts and the local elevators they abutted. So, that would be the next question we need to answer.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Sorry for the back-to-back posts. I want to follow up on this graphic. After looking at it more carefully it appears there is intention to the "indication of walls". I've annotated the drawing to show what I mean. We may actually be able to have a fair amount of confidence on assumptions made from this drawing.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join