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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So we do know that burning fuel was traveling in the shafts.
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?
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%.
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.
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.
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]
Originally posted by LeftBehind
That side image is obviously not a literal interpretation as it shows elevators outside of the core.
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?
Originally posted by Griff
No, but the explosions could have caused the same thing with no need for "extra" fire bombs"
Originally posted by LeftBehind
What purpose could that possibly serve?
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Good science is changing your hypothesis to fit the data.
Bad science is changing the data to fit your hypothesis.
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???
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]