9/11: What really happened

[rOmiLaYu]

Let's put this back on top.

I watched Netflix's documentary about it. It's two years old and I haven't seen it yet. Highly recommend it.

But there was something new in that one that I hadn't heard before. Multiple people talked about jet fuel being on fire and coming down the elevator shafts. Anybody heard that before?

They also showed a view of WTC2 collapsing that I had never seen before, where the corner sort of buckled in on itself and began the collapse.

 

[Psilloh1]

Jet fuel was well documented by survivors streaming down the walls and stairwells as well.

 

[lostchild]

Conspiracy theory guys be all…

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Jet fuel was well documented by survivors streaming down the walls and stairwells as well.

Really? I somehow manage to miss that. Mind you, I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying that I was ignorant. I guess I assume the initial explosion would have consumed all the jet fuel.

 

[rbstern]

Let's put this back on top.

I watched Netflix's documentary about it. It's two years old and I haven't seen it yet. Highly recommend it.

But there was something new in that one that I hadn't heard before. Multiple people talked about jet fuel being on fire and coming down the elevator shafts. Anybody heard that before?

They also showed a view of WTC2 collapsing that I had never seen before, where the corner sort of buckled in on itself and began the collapse.

The 767s that hit the towers both had about 10,000 gallons of fuel aboard. Some of that would have been aerosolized by the impact. Most likely what was in the the wing tanks. The center tank might have been able to penetrate the building with fuel still in a liquid state. Not hard to imagine some of that fuel getting into the center of the building and going down (impact compromised) elevator shafts while igniting.

The buckling shot: What level of the building was the buckling? Near the impact? Above? Below?

 

[rOmiLaYu]

The 767s that hit the towers both had about 10,000 gallons of fuel aboard. Some of that would have been aerosolized by the impact. Most likely what was in the the wing tanks. The center tank might have been able to penetrate the building with fuel still in a liquid state. Not hard to imagine some of that fuel getting into the center of the building and going down (impact compromised) elevator shafts while igniting.

I guess I can't really comprehend how much fuel 10,000 gallons is. Just did a quick google search and the average capacity for a swimming pool is between 18 to 20,000 gallons.

EDIT:

Actually just googled 767 fuel capacity and it's 24,000 gallons. So are you saying they had burned up half of their fuel? Or were you just off on the numbers? And comparatively, the center tank doesn't hold much fuel at all.

The buckling shot: What level of the building was the buckling? Near the impact? Above? Below?

The buckling took place on what would have been the southeast corner of the building on level with the impact. It looked like the corner of the building folded into itself. I took two screenshots, one before, one after it began collapsing. You can see it sort fall into itself. Timestamp and title in shots if you want to check it out on Netflix.

And then, after the collapse begins, you can see where the top of WTC2 is falling in the direction of the "buckle." I never noticed that before. I always thought it went straight down, but it didn't so much. Top left in frame below.

 

[rbstern]

I guess I can't really comprehend how much fuel 10,000 gallons is. Just did a quick google search and the average capacity for a swimming pool is between 18 to 20,000 gallons.

EDIT:

Actually just googled 767 fuel capacity and it's 24,000 gallons. So are you saying they had burned up half of their fuel? Or were you just off on the numbers? And comparatively, the center tank doesn't hold much fuel at all.

There are a bunch of 767 model variants. I believe the ones that hit the towers were -200 series. The -200ER has the bigger tanks, and I don't think these were ER variants. Also, airlines typically fuel planes with what they need to reach their destination, plus a safety margin. Carrying unneeded fuel costs money, so they don't do it. Based on what I can find online, fuel burn for an U.S. east coast to west coast route in a 767-200 is roughly a 7500 gallon trip, with variance for the specific engines and load. Wikipedia says AA flight 11 was loaded with approx. 10,000 gallons of fuel at impact, and UA 175 had approximately 9,100 gallons aboard at impact.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

There are a bunch of 767 model variants. I believe the ones that hit the towers were -200 series. The -200ER has the bigger tanks, and I don't think these were ER variants. Also, airlines typically fuel planes with what they need to reach their destination, plus a safety margin. Carrying unneeded fuel costs money, so they don't do it. Based on what I can find online, fuel burn for an U.S. east coast to west coast route in a 767-200 is roughly a 7500 gallon trip, with variance for the specific engines and load. Wikipedia says AA flight 11 was loaded with approx. 10,000 gallons of fuel at impact, and UA 175 had approximately 9,100 gallons aboard at impact.

I guess I just don't have a reference for how much fuel that is versus the size of the explosions. Because the explosions had to be the jet fuel. Nothing else in that building (tinfoil aside) was combustible on that level. So how much of that 10,000 gallons was burned up in the fireball vs what "spilled down the elevators?"

This is all very interesting to me. I'd never heard anything about fuel falling down until I watched the Netflix documentary. If that is the case, it could easily explain all the secondary explosions that were reported.

 

[rbstern]

I guess I just don't have a reference for how much fuel that is versus the size of the explosions. Because the explosions had to be the jet fuel. Nothing else in that building (tinfoil aside) was combustible on that level. So how much of that 10,000 gallons was burned up in the fireball vs what "spilled down the elevators?"

This is all very interesting to me. I'd never heard anything about fuel falling down until I watched the Netflix documentary. If that is the case, it could easily explain all the secondary explosions that were reported.

Imagine taking a two liter bottle of carbonated water, throwing it immensely fast against a solid wall that will dramatically destroy the plastic bottle. What you would expect is a fantastic shower/spray of a lot of soda water that is in a foamy / fizzy state. But the impact surface would also be covered in liquid, because the liquid can't interact with enough volume of air for the entire amount to be turned into aerosol.

The physics of volatile jet fuel against a building (and it's relatively empty interior spaces) would behave in a similar way. From the force of impact, a lot of the fuel would convert to particles suspended in the air (aerosol), but when the air immediately near the impact is saturated with liquid, it can't handle any more input, so the fuel coming behind can't be atomized into that air, and remains liquid, until it reaches someplace where it can become an aerosol, or loses enough energy to remain in liquid form.

Of course, complicating this is the ignition process, the energy being released by the flame front, concussion waves, and all this conversion starting at 500mph, decelerating to near 0mph, in a second or two.

Would be interesting to see a graphic recreation of the fuel's behavior. I imagine somebody has modeled it.

 

[rbstern]

Sorry, should have added: Those central columns also contained the building's water pipes, which in turn, lead to the high storage tanks at the top of the building. The liquid spilling down could have been water, mixed with burning jet fuel.