Elevator shafts

[quickesst]

I've noticed several references to fuel running down the elevator shafts as a contributing cause for the collapses. I have built probably close to twenty-five or thirty elevator shafts. Granted, nothing on the scale of the WTC, but I can tell you that one may cut a corner or two here and there, but elevator shafts and mechanical/electrical rooms are not on the list. An elevator shaft, by law, has to meet certain fire resistant specs. A shaft is built using one inch thick shaftboard that has a two hour fire rating. All penetrations, floors, ceilings, corners, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC are sealed with fireproofing. Another layer of 5/8 sheetrock which has a one hour rating is installed on the outside of the two hour wall. Any steel that penetrates into the shaft at any point is wrapped and sealed in the same manner. If there is a fire in an elevator shaft, it will not reach any steel support beams for a minimum of two hours. I don't see any possibility that any fuel ignited in the shafts could contribute to the collapses as both towers fell well before the rating on the wallboard expired. The only way I can see it reaching the steel from the shafts in less than two hours would be by means of some sort of propulsion and impact damage to the shaft wall itself. We can talk about that help later, but I can't see a cause for placing any credibility on the claim of fuel igniting in the shaft as a cause, or partial cause for the collapses. If you think my argument won't stand up, let me know what your thoughts are. That's in addition to the obligitory "debunkanese".:P Just my opinion based on many hot, sweaty hours in a few elevator shafts. I put in a lot of hours at work and at home, so my time on the 'puter is pretty limited, A response to any posts may not come till tomorrow evening, but I will respond. Thanks.
quickesst

[AZCat]

1. More than fireproofing...

HVAC penetrations (unless they meet one of the exceptions) must also have fire/smoke dampers at the penetration. Granted these can only hold a certain pressure - one that may have been exceeded on that fateful day.

[mrgerbik]

2. also

would this apply to both towers? Since WTC2 was hit at an angle closer to the perimeter where most of the fuel burned off in the ensuing fireball and not in the core as in building 1, it would seem that the fuel from the plane in WTC1 would have a better chance of entering the elevator shafts because of the compromised core. Strangely thou, WTC2 collapsed first.

[petgoat]

3. WTC2 collapsed first 'cause the fires were going out. nt

[mrgerbik]

4. and maybe telltale signs of themrate n/t

[Carefulplease]

5. The greater asymmetry of the damage was a factor.

Edited for grammar

If you chop wood with an axe from one side of a tree trunk, you will fell it faster that if you chop wood all around. The damage caused by the plane impact on WTC2 caused its top to lean heavily on one side. There was less structural damage for the fires to achieve (on either side) in order to bring the most loaded columns to fail.

The fires weren't quite going out, as evidence by the humongous plumes of hot smoke. Fresh oxygen (1/5th mixture) was going into the tower at the same rate smoke was coming out.

[mrgerbik]

6. then the tower would topple over towards the damaged side

there is also no evidence of a fire hot enough, or big enough, to damage the steel sufficiently to cause failure. Doesn't NIST even report the fires to be no hotter then 250C?

edit: multiple typos :P

[wildbilln864]

7. what are you talking about?

"If you chop wood with an axe from one side of a tree trunk, you will fell it faster that if you chop wood all around. The damage caused by the plane impact on WTC2 caused its top to lean heavily on one side. "

yes the tree of course falls over to the side not upon itself in a pile obliterating itself!

And once again this fire argument has gotten so old! Fires do not collapse steel framed buildings. Especially ones built to withstand passenger jets slamming into them and hundred mile an hour winds.
Get real!

[wildbilln864]

8. this one didn't collapse.

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-70968

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. Neither did this one

?SDFEWE

[Carefulplease]

31. An aircraft hit didn’t weaken this one. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. The Towers survived the impact of the crash

The buildings were able to redistribute the load.

[Carefulplease]

53. They didn't survive impact + fire.

The load redistribution resulted in highly stressed individual structural components. The damage was asymmetrical. The fires further weakened the structure until no more load redistribution was possible.

[wildbilln864]

56. wrong IMO...

and after all isn't that what you're giving here? Your opinion otherwise you could produce sources? How could the damage be asymmetricle when the plane hit the corner in one? And the majority of the fuel explodes outside?
Just sayin!

[Carefulplease]

57. Isn't it asymmetric?

The towers each have two planes of symmetry dividing each floor in four quadrants. Damage close to one corner would produce asymmetric loads unless some similar damage was produced to all other three corners. Symmetry with respect to the core axis would require similar damage to the diagonally opposed corner. The fuel did not produce much structural damage.

The post-impact loads are analysed in the NIST report.

[wildbilln864]

66. I agree...

that the fuel produced little if any structural damage.
And the plane hitting was sort of like sticking a pencil into a birdcage. And the building was structurally sound below the impact areas. Yet the lower building seems to give way? Three buildings! Not just two. Something else made these buildings fall IMO!
Believe what ever you want.

[Carefulplease]

28. It did not burn nor was it steel-framed. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Misread the responses

The First Interstate Bank Building, completed in 1973, is a 62-story structural steel office building with glass curtain walls. The building measures 124 feet by 184 feet and contains approximately 17,500 square feet of office space per floor built around a central core.

I posted this has a reply to Carefulplease who I thought was responding to me. Sorry for the error.

Thanks Make7

[Make7]

50. Not a big deal - we all do that from time to time. ( n/t )

[AZCat]

10. The "tree analogy" has been discussed here.

The problem is that a building differs from a tree in that the ability of a building to remain cohesive under non-axial stresses is less than that of a tree. The separate constituents of the tree bind to each other far more successfully than those of the building structure.

[KJF]

11. Alternatively...

... many people left WTC 2 when WTC 1 was hit, so it was emptied earlier and therefore demolished earlier.

[Jazz2006]

9. Interesting. Do tell us more about the elevator shafts when you

get back tomorrow, quickesst.

I'll reserve my comments until then.

[dailykoff]

12. Right on.

One more big fat PNAC lie debunked.

[KJF]

13. I've got a question (actually 2)

Could a fireball in an elevator shaft have blown the doors out on the ground floor?

How much fuel would such fireball have needed to do this?

Any ideas?

[quickesst]

14. Well...

I've got a few minutes before I have to go to work. First, Jazz, I do not know what else to add to it. I thought I had given enough so that anyone familiar with the theory could comment. I would have a time trying to figure out how much it would take to blow any doors out, but I would assume it would be more than what free-flowing jet fuel could generate. Of course, that scenario is applicable on an open elevator door, but only one floor is exposed at any given time in an elevator. All I am saying is the chances of fire caused by jet fuel running into an elevator shaft is almost nil for at least two hours. Since the towers fell in less time, I would look to other causes to counter the ct theories, because this one is a dead end. Thanks. Off to work.
quickesst
A piece of shaftwallboard is two feet by twelve feet, by one inch, densely packed, and weighs around a hundred pounds each. They are interlocked with heavy guage steel tongue and groove type studs. A raging bull would have a time penetrating it.

[quickesst]

15. Well?

I suppose this post will fall by the wayside, and a couple of days later, the same argument will be used as though this thread never existed. That's one thing I have noticed that stands out in this forum. By the way, when I related the fuel down the elevator shaft theory to my brother-in-law, who is a non-political type and in construction for thirty years nationwide, I thought I was going to have to grab him from falling out of the truck he was laughing so hard. Oh well, I've addressed this before, and I suppose I will again. Thanks.
quickesst

[Grateful for Hope]

16. I noticed your reply

and appreciated it. I think the forum is usually pretty quiet during the day because people are at work.

[quickesst]

17. Maybe...

I jumped the gun on a reply, but it seems these threads disappear pretty quickly as new information is added almost daily. I did want to add a comment concerning the monocote insulation. I hope noone seriously believes the fireproofing was knocked off the steel anywhere but the immediate area of impact. Believe me, I have scraped enough of that stuff off to install top track for metal stud walls. I attatch the steel track with the use of a Hilti pin gun using steel penetrating pins propelled by a twenty-five caliber load with the barrel pushed flush with the steel beam. Quite an impact in that small area, and rarely will even a piece of the fireproofing fall away from the beam. Sticks pretty well. Thanks, and thanks.;-)
quickesst

[dailykoff]

19. Dislodged fireproofing

is one of their more hilarious whoppers.

[Carefulplease]

32. Why wouldn't an aircraft hit disloge the fireproofing?

The debris field from the aircraft hitting the Pentagon stripped reinforced concrete columns bare. That's one inch thick of *concrete* that was dislodged.

[dailykoff]

33. Why WOULD it?

edit to add: that stuff is like thick paint. How many colliding cars strip the paint off each other?

[Carefulplease]

42. It's not like automobile paint.

The fireproofing adhesive strength is 250 to 500 psf. That's just 1.7 to 3.5 pounds per square inch. (1)

And its thickness is a shortcoming. The thick stuff has more inertia. So, moving steel (vibrations from debris impact) tends to leave it behind. (2)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf
(1) p.103 and (2) pp.109-112

[dailykoff]

45. So now it's bad "vibrations"?

Do you think it could have been the feng shui?

[Carefulplease]

54. In the direct path of impacting debris...

I was thinking of locally produced vibrations in the direct debris path.

Do you believe that *either* the stell structural components are completely destroyed *or* the weakly adhering fireproofing material must be left undisturbed? Can you not think of an another possibility?

NIST only assumed that the fireproofing was removed where the debris field was dense enough to rubblelize the office floor content, but not quite dense enough to rip the truss floors and steel columns themselves apart. They did not assume that fireproofing was dislodged from mere vibrations outstide of the debris field, although it might have been: their model did not predict the intensity of such vibrations accurately enough. So they went with a conservative hypothesis. Only direct debris hit were assumed to have dislodged the material.

[dailykoff]

98. What difference would that make?

And the NIST didn't assume localized loss of fireproofing. It was a big part of their idiot analysis. In reality, though, it was a total non-issue, just like the truss clips, fuel fires, burning Post-Its and every other cockamamie Kool-Aid conclusion they've dreamed up in the last five years.

[AZCat]

18. There's definitely an "ebb and flow"

It picks up surprisingly early in the morning, but not much seems to happen until evening. If I get to work early I might post before starting the day but otherwise it usually has to wait until after 6 PM Arizona time (no daylight savings).

[dailykoff]

20. Right you are.

In a week, the same squid will squirt the same questions into another thread. The answers don't really matter.

[quickesst]

21. It just ....

surprises me that the majority of the building that was still intact below the impact is treated like a house built out of cards. What we saw that day was not a result of fuel fire spreading through the elevator shaft, nor was it because the fireproofing was knocked loose. It sounds more rediculous every time I hear it. Thanks.
quickesst

[wildbilln864]

23. Hello quickesst...

I too am experienced in commercial construction as well as res.
I've done metal stud framing and acoustic ceiling installation for years.
Yes I've shot up plenty of track for walls with a hilti gun too. Haven't built many shafts though I know how they're constructed.
They pulled this shit on the American people thinking they had all the bases covered and could handle most any problems. They probably do! But I have to wonder if they took into account the power of the internet and blogs. It seems that people are becoming aware of the deception more and more every day.
I agree with everything you said. I hope this shit comes out completely but I doubt it will.
Bill

[Carefulplease]

34. How do you expect the lower part of the tower...

How do you expect the lower part of the tower to behave when the top part falls on it? There are henceforth zero columns connecting the two parts. What could resist the fall apart from the inertia of the floors and their weak truss connections (meant to hold the static load from 1 floor)?

[dailykoff]

38. The top parts didn't fall on the lower parts. They rotated

and then the whole building started dropping and then they just disappeared. Watch the stupid clip on 911myths for pete's sake.

And the trusses sure as heck weren't holding up the core columns!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

edit to remove rofl.

[Carefulplease]

40. Indeed they rotated...

And because they rotated, the columns yielded. The tops rotated like rigid bodies. The columns were connected above to the hat truss and below to concrete foundations resting on bedrock. So, since the tops rotated, every column that did not run through the axis of rotation had to fail (through being either compressed or stretched beyond its elastic range.) And the remaining handful of bent columns (in the axis) would just have been overloaded. The tops then fall. The columns segments of the upper block are no longer connected to the lower segments; there is nothing else but horizontal elements such as trusses and beams to hold them up. But these are only meant to hold the static load from one single floor, not the dynamic load of whole 10-30 strorey blocks falling down on them.

[dailykoff]

44. They fell because the buildings beneath them fell

and they should have also continued rotating, but they didn't, because they disintegrated.

They did NOT hammer the structures below them. Watch the clips on your favorite talking points site.


edit to add, your post has nothing to do with any known structure.

[DoYouEverWonder]

74. I wouldn't expect the lower part of the tower

to end up looking like this. Not if the building pancaked.




Has anyone explained way so much of the outer walls of both towers remained standing?

[Carefulplease]

82. Evidence of pancaking...

Pancaking floors can be expected to produce exactly that. The falling floors shave off the truss connections of the floor assemblies they fall onto, and the perimeter wall section bent and yield from lack of lateral support. Only a few sections remain standing close to the ground because they are short enough to stand alone.

[DoYouEverWonder]

85. The visual evidence

shows that very large and significant sections of wall remainded standing. Most of the west wall of Tower 2 and most of the the north wall of Tower 1 up to the 12th floor and some pieces above that remained standing with no other support. That's more then a 'few' sections and they were not short.

[Carefulplease]

88. I did not say these walls were "short" simpliciter...

I said they were short enough to stand alone without lateral support. Weren't they?

Because the floors pancaked, they were disconnected from the supporting columns. Since the truss floor membranes were the only lateral bracings of the perimeter walls (at most levels), huge sections of perimeter walls broke off and fell to the ground after the floors were gone. Those remnant lateral walls are further evidence that the floors pancaked all the way down. It's certainly not evidence of the explosive destruction of either perimeter or core columns.

[dailykoff]

99. There is absolutely no evidence of pancaking anywhere.

Where are the stacks of pancaked floors, for instance? Did the KE monster eat them?

[KJF]

22. Nist says:

Some of the burning jet fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. (p. 24 of the main report)

The lobby explosion in the North Tower was also confirmed by lots of witnesses.

AFAIK the elevator shaft that the fuel is supposed to have gone down into the basement in is one of the ones that was hit by the plane debris - it's in the impact region. So the fuel is supposed to have spilled directly into the shaft (or something like that). There's a picture of an explosition at the very top of WTC 1 when the plane hits. Presumably this is fuel exploding, travelling 10-15 stories up through an elevator shaft and coming out the louvers on the mechanical floors.

According to another poster on here, the shaft was big enough to fit a van in.

There were two people in the shaft at the time of the explosion, one was injured as the elevator car fell and he broke his knee. I've seen no report of them getting burned.

A can't see how a jet fuel explosion can blow the hatch doors off without filling the entire shaft first.

[quickesst]

24. When I watched...

the impacts on the towers, both planes exploded. It's hard for me to imagine, especially if there were raging fires, that some of the jet fuel ignited, and thousands of gallons poured down an elevator shaft untouched by the fire resulting from the impacts. Was this ultra, time-delayed fuel that went down the shaft? If you pump a shaft full of fuel, then light it, it will only burn on top as the fire burns off the fuel. If it was ignited on it's way down, then the progression of ignition would be incremental, and as fuel is lit, it's energy is dispelled. Can't see jet fuel just pouring freely into a shaft, escaping any contact of the supposed raging fires, then settling before ignition from the bottom(?). With the exception of the impact floors, the rest of the shaft, as stated before, is sealed with a two hour fire wall, and if you haven't noticed, the doors of an elevator are very solid and quite thick. Most construction workers I know are not involved in politics, and are mostly ignorant of any misgivings people have with the OTC, but, when OTC scenarios are presented without mentioning the the WTC, and given as a general scenario, all with credible experience in the construction field that I have talked to agree the OTC scenarios are unlikely, and in most cased literally laughed at. Book learning and practical application is like trying to equate a duck with a goose. They're two different animals although they share similar traits. I would be like alley oop in a laboratory, but the same scientists in that laboratory would be lost trying to keep up with me out in the field. Thanks.
quickesst

[mirandapriestly]

26. HA! "ultra, time-delayed fuel "

more Bush science? -I knew the fireball descending and exploding out of the elevator didn't make sense, but you gave some good reasons why. The fuel fire was supposed to be out in a few seconds, so if this was not already ignited , what ignited it? I think they just have to find an explanation for the fires and explosions in the lobby and that was all they could come up with. It sounds impossible to me. Fire moves upward, so unless it was somehow ignited after it dripped down, this doesn't make any sense..

[Carefulplease]

27. Fuel needs oxigen to burn.

There must have been more fuel spilled in the core than there was oxygen available to burn it all. The fuel fires lasted several minutes. The unburned fuel could have spilled into some shafts and mixed with oxygen rich air until some flaming debris fell there, or until something produced a spark, or until some oxyden-fuel mixtures rose by diffusion to a ignition source.

Whatever the actual scenario, it is a mistake to assume that the fuel must have burned all at once.

[dailykoff]

30. Maybe it hit somebody's cigar!

:crazy:

[mirandapriestly]

35. Yeah, I saw that on "wikipedia".eom

[DemInDistress]

63. you mean "shaft" singular

since there was just elevator that went express to the top of each tower. All other elevator shafts could only go to the nearest sky lobby located on/about 42nd and 78thy floors.
The explosions felt in the lobby came from the basement blast that courtesy of william rodriguez key master of WT1.

Careful here.. one elevator ran the length of the WTC keep that in mind or prove me wrong

see you later when I get back home

[Carefulplease]

65. I mean "shafts" plural.

I meant "shafts" plural.

I agree that just one elevator ran the length of the tower.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf
pp.33-35

Car #50 ran from B6 to 108.

However, car #6 also ran from B5 to 107.

Several more ran from the impact floors to the Sky Lobby below.

See the testimony of firefighter Peter Blaich:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/blaich.html

"The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out."

[DoYouEverWonder]

76. According to this report

Elevators #6 & 7 in the North Tower had their doors blown out.

Arriving at the North Tower FCC, the PA staff began to assist the arriving firemen in orienting within the North Tower and the rest of the complex. A first priority was to communicate with people that might be stuck on the elevators. Being familiar with the operation of the elevator intercom system, Bobbitt and Parente began to communicate with those on the elevators. Riccardelli answered firemen's questions helping them to find their way throughout the building.

"It was quite hectic, and we did what we could to stay in contact with the elevator passengers while helping to direct other people out of the building and direct firemen to the stairs and the elevators," Bobbitt remarked. "When entering the North Tower, we saw the marble on the walls was severely cracked, and Riccardelli told everyone to stay back from the walls. Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out."

http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0112-005.html-ssi

[Carefulplease]

80. Interresting...

Interestingly, those two (#6, #7) in addition to freight elevator #50 are the only three that run all the way up to the aircraft impact zone of WTC1. How would you explain this?

[DoYouEverWonder]

84. That's where

I would have put the bombs. Drive the load on in the AM before the attack. Shut the elevator down. Oops the motor got fried and head uptown.

Besides those are the only elevators they could use because you don't want to be moving explosives around on one of the sky lobbies in order to get to the upper floors.

[DemInDistress]

77. shaft..singular..just one elevator ran the length of both towers.

According to the website of Otis Elevators, who installed and serviced the elevator systems within WTC 1 and WTC 2, each tower contained only 1 freight elevator that served both the sub levels of each tower and the floors within the impact zone of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1:

"In addition to normal freight service one freight elevator in each of the towers will serve a total of 112 stops from the fifth basement to the 108th floor."

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC3066_CLI1_RES1_SEC5,00.html


However ... it seems that this particular freight elevator was in use during the impact of AA Flight 11 at WTC 1. Not only did it's operator and passenger survive the impact of Flight 11 but they also did not report evidence that would suggest the presence of any powerfully explosive fireball within the elevator's shaft:

"Arturo (Griffith) was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor... Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo's car plunged into free fall. The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm

Maybe someone is trying to cover-up the "inside job"...

[Carefulplease]

79. I forgot car #7 so that makes three...

I said I agreed that just one elevator (car #50) ran from B6 sub-level to floor 108. However, both express elevators #6 and #7 ran from B5 to floor 107 (servicing B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107). I left out #7 earlier because the NIST report listed only #6 in the short list of representative express elevators. So, three elevators shaft ran form the impact zone all the way down to the sub-levels. Many more ran from the impact zone to several floors and to the next lobby below and to several floors above.

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-7index.htm
p. 34

[Jazz2006]

70. You seem to be suggesting, DemInDistress, that

there was some kind of separation in the shafts such that the local elevators were enclosed in separate shafts sealed off from the others and sealed off from other floors and that the shafts did not extend the height of the building.

Is that what you meant or did you mean something else?

[DoYouEverWonder]

75. From what I remember

that was some sort of division within most of the shafts, not just to accommodate multiple elevators in the same shaft but also to prevent what is referred to has the chimney effect.

[DemInDistress]

78. yes jazz.. not to forget that shafts were hermetically sealed

to prevent fires from traveling down or up both towers had there been a raging inferno scenario.

[Carefulplease]

81. Quite possibly...

After being hit by some aircraft chunks they weren't fully hermetic anymore.

[Jazz2006]

83. Link, please, DemInDistress. n/t

Edit to add n/t to subject line.

[DemInDistress]

90. here is an elevator diagram... notice there is only 1 (one)

elevator that runs from the basement to the top so how did fire(s) reach the lobby? You also said, "shafts" meaning more than one reached the lobby of the twin towers discharging fire. Jazz, how did those large glass windows in the lobby break? the crash was 90 floors up. Willie Rodriguez said," he heard a massive blast coming from the basement. H'mm

[Carefulplease]

94. This is a side view. It does not picture all the individual elevators.

This view you found was also presented in the NIST reference I provided. It does not display all of the ~100 elevators each tower had.

Here is another reference.

http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/NFPA1993WTCIncidentReport.pdf#search=%22wtc%20%22three%20elevators%22%22

"Only three elevators in each tower, one freight and two passenger, traverse the entire height of the building. The freight elevator has door openings on all floors and basement levels. One of the passenger elevators that traverse the entire building has door openings 15 on every floor between the 78th floor and the top of the building, and it has openings in the basement levels and openings on a few floors in the lower two-thirds of the building."

[Jazz2006]

97. That doesn't support your point, DemInDistress. Link, please.

I have long known what the elevator layout is in the towers. I was asking you for a link showing that the shafts were separated in the way that you described above (i.e. hermetically sealed, and some kind of separation in the shafts such that the local elevators were enclosed in separate shafts sealed off from the others such that the shafts did not extend beyond the extent of the local elevator floors)

You seem to be suggesting that the elevator shafts were not only "hermetically sealed" (link still required as requested above) but also that the shafts themselves were sealed off in some fashion at the points where the local elevators ran (link still required as requested above).

There is more, of course, but for now, I'll leave it at that and await your response and an appropriate link or links that support your contention(s) before going further.

Edit for clarity.

[DemInDistress]

105. still looking jazz you ????

anyway I stand by what I say, "one elevator" one complete top to basement elevator. Singular !! Now is it possible that jet fuel got off the 90th floor and then took the express from the 78th sky lobby? Or did the blown out plate glass windows in the lobby of WT1 break due to the massive blast in the sub basement?

Either way its ludicrous to believe jet fuel ended up in the lobby did you see black smoke in the lobby? I didn't.
As for the WTC blueprints its sad they hid the those blueprints. But why? have an explanation for that jazz you ????

Be back later have some homeless cats to care for .

[dailykoff]

29. Dripped down AND up

and then blew the glass out of the lobbies. Amazing stuff.

:rofl:

[mirandapriestly]

36. wasn't there no soot? Maybe I'm wrong about that

seems like I remember no soot.

[Carefulplease]

37. Did not "drip up". Rather: was blown up. Think air pressure...

Also, an overpressure blows large panes of glass easily. (Force = pressure * surface area)

[dailykoff]

39. Right. Blew out the lobby then blew a quarter mile up to the roof.

Mighty powerful stuff.

[Carefulplease]

41. Blowing air up is not much harder than blowing it down...

Taking buoyancy into account: the exact same force is required for both. And the stuff is powerful indeed. It's meant to push a 150 tons aircraft around.

[dailykoff]

43. It burns outside, it explodes inside, it falls down, it floats up,

it bakes a cake in three minutes. This is another single bullet bullet theory.

[Carefulplease]

55. The fuel fires are not assumed...

The fuel fires are not assumed to have baked the cake. The fuel ignited fires all at once on vast areas of multiple floors. The plane impact broke open hundreds of large windows. Those let fresh oxygen in and CO2 out in large ammounts. The burning of furniture and normal office content baked the cake with a heat output comparable to the output of a nuclear power plant.

[quickesst]

58. The photo....

and we've all seen it, shows a young woman standing on the edge of the impact area. Her clothing and hair are unscathed. "The burning of furniture and normal office content baked the cake with a heat output comparable to the output of a nuclear power plant." If their was heat equivalent to a nuclear power plant occurring right behind her, I don't think she would be standing there, much less looking down. Thanks.
quickesst

[Carefulplease]

62. That's because a hot burning spot wasn't located "right behind her".

People work in power plants you know. Have a look at the NIST report to see where the hot spots and the cold spots are located at any given time. See if it's consistent with the behavior of people who jumped and those who didn't. Wasn't this person standing on the upwind side of the tower?

[wildbilln864]

67. Now I definitely have to call

bullshit on the statement, "The burning of furniture and normal office content baked the cake with a heat output comparable to the output of a nuclear power plant."
What do you think of that one guys? Jazz?

[Carefulplease]

69. WTC fires and nuclear power plants....

This is a list of the nuclear power plants in the U.S.A

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/enrico_fermi.html

Select a plant in the left drop down lists. You will see that most units range in power from 500MW to 1.2GW

For instance:

Arkansas nuclear one, unit 1: 846 MW
Arkansas nuclear one, unit 2: 930 MW
Beaver Valley, unit 1: 810 MW
Beaver Valley, unit 1: 831 MW
Braidwood, unit 1: 1.185 GW
Braidwood, unit 1: 1.177 GW

Have a look at http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm
pages xlvi.

"Much of the information needed to simulate the fires as describes above came from laboratory-scale tests. While some of these involved enclosures several meters in dimension and fires that reached heat release rates of 10 MW and 12 GJ in total heat output, they were still far smaller than the fires that burned on September 11, 2001, in the WTC towers. Figure E-2 shows the heat release rates from the FDS simulations of the WTC fires."

You will see on the figure that the heat release rates for the four simulation cases during the first hour range between 0.5 and 1.5GW

So, I stand by my comment : "The burning of furniture and normal office content baked the cake with a heat output comparable to the output of a nuclear power plant"

[dailykoff]

100. I don't doubt that the heat output rivaled a nuclear power plant.

But it wasn't from burning pencils.

[quickesst]

103. First you...

you liken the heat in the WTC to a nuclear power plant, then compare the area with a fully functioning nuclear power station, complete with cool spots and safe areas. Thanks for the laugh.
quickesst

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. The fuel in an aircraft

doesn't push anything. Last time I checked a jet engine was required.

[Carefulplease]

89. A jet engine directs the hot expanding combustion gasses...

...and an elevator shaft would as well. Fuel air mixtures expand when they are ignited. 9/11, 2001 is hardly the first time a fuel spill resulted in some catastrophic deflagrations or detonations.

[dailykoff]

101. Elevators mix, preheat, and compress jet fuel?

How?

[LARED]

47. In it's simplest form an explosion is merely a

extremely rapid expansion of gas. An explosion in a shaft would cause the air to compress very quickly as the explosion expands. The compressed air is naturally at a higher pressure than air outside the shaft as the fuel explosion expands, so blowing a hatch off without first filling the shaft with the explosive gas would be expected.

[KJF]

51. OK, fair enough

I can see it might work like that in theory, although I'm reserving judgement on whether that's what actually happened.

So how much fuel are you saying must have leaked into the shaft and exploded there for it to blow the hatch doors off? This is one of the things that bothers me most about the initial explosions.

Would it blow all the doors off, or just on some floors, or what? And doesn't the fact that the hatch doors are blown off indicate that they're the weakest point?

Plus, there was a fireball afterwards in the lobby.

[LARED]

86. It's rather difficult to tell how much fuel would be required

as there are far too many unknowns to even guess at your answer. But consider that one pound of water if heated to a vapor state will increase in volume about 1600 times. Fuel is obviously different, but it points out that the expansion from a liquid to a gas typically incur a massive change in volume.

As to your question about which doors blow off, it basically works this way. The explosion creates a pressure wave in all directions. The pressure will relive itself at the path of least resistance or the weakest points in the structure.

[mrgerbik]

91. which would be where the fuel had entered... not 80 floors below n/t

[LARED]

102. I'm sure you were trying to make a point, Perhaps

you could expand (pun intended) on your post a bit to let me know what it was

[KJF]

93. 25,000

I looked at how much jet fuel expands when it explodes some time ago, but I've lost the link. I think Eagar said it was 25,000 times. The shaft was about 1,400 feet long (from the 6th subbasement to 108) and the elevator was allegedly big enough to fit a van in.

[LARED]

104. So what do you conclude from that information? (n/t)

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. I can't see how fuel from the airplanes

would have stayed together in liquid form and 'poured' down anything. Most of the fuel burnt off in the fire ball. The rest would have atomized and sprayed the inside of the building, but it certainly wouldn't have turned into a river.

My guess is that the liquid people saw pour down the windows and insides of the building was water from broken pipes and/or the big tanks of water for fire suppression that were installed an various floors.

[savemefromdumbya]

59. the fuel burnt off in the fireball the rest is baloney

[Carefulplease]

60. Office fires without jet fuel all are baloney?

Were there no other combustible materials on those office floors?

[savemefromdumbya]

61. not the sort of liquid that runs through the walls and shafts

[quickesst]

64. Just remember...

that even a single layer 5/8 piece of sheetrock has a one hour fire rating. Suppose burning, exploding, dancing, fuel went down the elevator shaft, blew out some of the elevator doors, which I am assuming has been referred to as "hatches", how much fuel came out of each door, and how much would it take to reach from the elevator shaft to all the steel columns or some of them, burn long enough to penetrate the sheetrock, which in cases of firewalls is double-layered, then burn long enough to damage the steel to the point of weakening? I simply believe, that if it happened the OTC way, the fuel would have dispersed so widely, the amount of fuel on each floor affected would have had a negligible effect on the steel columns or trusses below the impact area. I also believe the fuel was expended and burned on impact. Thanks.
quickesst

[wildbilln864]

68. Please name ...

some of those so called combustible materials that have burning temps over 1800 degrees farenheit please! I can't think of any?

"The burning of furniture and normal office content baked the cake with a heat output comparable to the output of a nuclear power plant."

Was there U238 or plutonium in there? :eyes:

[Carefulplease]

71. The temperature of a candle flame is 2500 degree F.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/895030315.Ch.r.html

The NIST set ordinary office material ablaze to conduct its scale-model testings. The air temperatures reached are consistent with the time temperature curve the astm e119 standard is based on. Ordinary office fires are hot enough.

[mrgerbik]

92. doesn't mean

that if you stick a candle underneath a pot of water - the water will instantly reach a temperature of 2500F. Obviously you would need more heat energy. Even when people quote the WTC fires at 1000C, it's HIGHLY doubtful that this was the sustained temperature over the duration of the fire.

[Carefulplease]

95. Why is that highly doubtful?

The NIST simulations show the fires slowly migrating. They follow the combustible material. They still release enough heat in a given place to compromise the steel.

[mrgerbik]

96. if the fuel for the fire

was mostly office materials and the jet fuel acted mostly as the catalyst, then yes, it is highly doubtful that 1000C+ temps were sustained long enough to cause the damage that were are led to believe happened.

The 1000C+ fire was most likely its highest peak temperature, which may have been for 10-20 min at the most. The fact that the steel was acting as a heat-sink also hinders this theory.

[Jazz2006]

72. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you addressed me until now since you

did so in a post that was not responsive to mine.

First, Jazz, I do not know what else to add to it. I thought I had given enough so that anyone familiar with the theory could comment.

I have never adhered to the theory (nor known others to) that jet fuel spilling and burning down the elevator shafts was what actually caused the collapse, so this is news to me. While I do not doubt that jet fuel did, in fact, spill and burn down the elevator shafts in light of the evidence that it did so (see, for instance, the witness accounts in the book "102 Minutes"), I have never viewed this as indicative of anything other than unfortunate additional deaths but not as the cause of the collapse of the towers.

Your opening post seems to suggest that the jet fuel down the elevator shafts is propounded as more than that. That's why I asked you for more information.

As for the fireproofing capacity in the elevator shafts, I will defer to your purported experience in elevator shaft building insofar as it is applicable (most CTers here wouldn't, by the way, but I'm a reasonable sort). However, I don't think that it was a matter of fuel spilling down the shafts and catching fire an hour later and I haven't seen anything to suggest that that was the case.

From my reading of first hand accounts and my research into the issues, I take it that it wasn't a matter of jet fuel spilling down and catching fire an hour later but that the jet fuel in the elevator shafts was part of the initial sequence: i.e. a plane crashed into a building striking and penetrating parts of the core, including penetration into the hoistways; in the process, the aircraft fuel tanks were ruptured with much of that fuel burning in the large fireballs that we have all witnessed since then via video, but some of the fuel could not help but head downward through the open elevator shafts that had been penetrated (thanks to gravity), which would quickly be ignited by the large fireball above and travel downward as the fire caught up to the falling fuel. The burning fuel in the hoistways followed the downward path as it could hardly do otherwise.

Think of taking a gas can and spreading a stream of gas from point A to point B in a straight line on the ground and then light it at point A. The flame path will follow the flow of gas that you've set out. Now, think of doing the same thing vertically instead of horizontally. The flame will still follow the path but if there are other contingencies (such as suddenly finding the flame being in a contained evironment which cannot withstand the capacity of the fire), all kinds of things can happen, such as blowing open the doors of the elevators when they proved unable to contain the pressure of the fires.

Thus, it is not a matter of having a two hour fire capacity at all. We are talking about simultaneous events and burning jet fuel streaming down a shaft. And since you build elevator shafts and since you know the layout of the WTC elevator shafts, you are not suggesting that such events would or could be contained to a single elevator car, right?

[quickesst]

73. See...

post #64. I never stated the fire down the elevator shaft was claimed as THE cause, but that it is claimed by the OTC as being a contributing factor.

"Thus, it is not a matter of having a two hour fire capacity at all. We are talking about simultaneous events and burning jet fuel streaming down a shaft. And since you build elevator shafts and since you know the layout of the WTC elevator shafts, you are not suggesting that such events would or could be contained to a single elevator car, right?"

HUH?:shrug: Thanks.
quickesst