Looking for information on the subway tunnels below WTC

I'm looking for any and all information on the subway tunnels below the towers. Any help would be appreciated.

I was in NYC yesterday but didn't have a chance to go to GZ and check out the tunnels there. But, the station I was in had just normal columns (far smaller than the massive columns of the towers) holding up not only the streets of New York but the people, traffic and yes....buildings. So, if the tunnels under the trade center weren't built with as massive columns as the towers, why didn't the tunnels also collapse with the building? Why did the buildings collapse only into the basements and not down the whole way into the tunnels? I mean, the force alone was enough to rate 2.1 and 2.3 on the reichter scale (according to the official version, this force was the force of falling debris) but not enough to crush the tunnels?

Questions:

Where they reinforced with a much larger Factor of Safety than the towers?

How much of the tunnel system collapsed?

How where the tunnels built?

If anyone who lives there could take some photos of the tunnels and especially the columns, that would be great.

Am I making sense in what I'm saying?

There was at least a partial collapse of the tunnels based on the picture on this page.

New York city expects to have the N and R subway lines, which run along the east side of the World Trade Center site, back in service in about six months. But the news isn't as good for the devastated 800-ft-long stretch of the 1 and 9 IRT subway tunnel, several feet under ground zero. It could take years to rebuild, say officials, and may even include a new alignment and station, depending on the future plan for the site above. Restoring service on the flooded PATH tubes to New Jersey largely depends on rebuilding the collapsed station in the middle of the basement of the WTC.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, engineers have been drawing up emergency shoring, bracing and tunnel cut-off plans for the two city transit lines and the PATH tubes, and contractors have been implementing them. The emergency New York City transit work alone could cost an estimated $2 million to $4 million, says Mysore Nagaraja, the New York City Transit Authority's chief engineer.

Nagaraja expects the rebuilding of the IRT tunnel to be funded through the city's $20-billion federal relief package but he won't hazard a guess as to the price tag. "It would be very difficult right now to come up with any meaningful cost estimate," he says. "Engineers are looking at all the options, and when we get the funding, we can proceed. The alignment of the future cut-and-cover tunnels will likely change," he adds.

www.hudsoncity.net...

Thanks Zaphod.

Now this leads to another question. If the tunnels did collapse, how could they have fed the fires oxygen to create the kiln effect? Just interesting.

My friend was in the subway about a block or so away from GZ when the buildings fell. He was down there for 8 hours or so and nobody knew what was going on. they all knew that they themselves were ok but they thought that maybe an earthquake had happened. they didn't find out until they got out from the tunnels.

I know the subway tunnels in LA can withstand 7 on the rickterscale earthquakes. They say they are the safest place to be in the city during an earthquake other than the library tower downtown which is 72 stories high. So the subways there could be able to handle a lot more than a 2 on the rickter scale.

Originally posted by Griff
Thanks Zaphod.

Now this leads to another question. If the tunnels did collapse, how could they have fed the fires oxygen to create the kiln effect? Just interesting.

That I have no idea about. I've reached the end of my knowledge on this subject with finding that the tunnels did undergo at least a partial collapse.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I know the subway tunnels in LA can withstand 7 on the rickterscale earthquakes. They say they are the safest place to be in the city during an earthquake other than the library tower downtown which is 72 stories high. So the subways there could be able to handle a lot more than a 2 on the rickter scale.

Thanks for the info. Not practicing in an earthquake zone, I have little experience with earthquake design. Thanks again.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That I have no idea about. I've reached the end of my knowledge on this subject with finding that the tunnels did undergo at least a partial collapse.

That really wasn't directed towards you Zaphod, but thanks for replying anyway. And thanks for finding that article.

architecture is a pretty cool profession. I look at them like artists except they have more genius because the art has to look good and be functionable. I love to drive around fancy neighborhoods to admire the architecture.....and the landscaping.... and some of the trophy wife joggers.

I'll post this for reference but I'm not sure where it comes from:




I actually remember reading an article somewhere saying that well over a mile of the actual structure of the tunnel was going to have to be replaced because of extended damage to it, which I thought was odd for a structural collapse over a localized section of it, and really the collapse wasn't even that bad on top of that one part.

Thanks BsBray. These questions are really a double edged sword. Because on one side, if they didn't collapse then why? On the other side, if they did collapse how can people claim that the hotspots were fed oxygen by the tunnels?

But, I guess we have come to the conclusion that they did collapse. So, how were the hotspots of molten steel fed oxygen through a collapsed tunnel? That's not a question directed at you BsBray.

The key is "partial colapse". I don't think any part of the destruction in the subway tunnels caused a complete blockage of the tunnels, therefore, air would still be able to feed any fires in the substructure of the WTC complex.

By the looks of that picture posted by Zaphod, it completely obstructed the air. I believe when they say partial collapse, they are talking about a section of the tunnel and not the whole tunnel. I could always be wrong. Thanks for responding to my thread.

Edit: Just for clarity, here's the picture.



[edit on 6/11/2007 by Griff]

it may look completely blocked, but what about the other end? I'm sure there could have been lots of openings for air to travel through the tunnels to feed the fires. doesn't take much of a hole to let air in.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
My friend was in the subway about a block or so away from GZ when the buildings fell. He was down there for 8 hours or so and nobody knew what was going on. they all knew that they themselves were ok but they thought that maybe an earthquake had happened. they didn't find out until they got out from the tunnels.

Same thing happened to my sister. If she hadn't missed her train, she would have caught the one that was under the building when it came down. They had to sit in total darkness for hours. And of course they had no idea what was going on.

Originally posted by sensfan
it may look completely blocked, but what about the other end? I'm sure there could have been lots of openings for air to travel through the tunnels to feed the fires. doesn't take much of a hole to let air in.

When considering what I'm talking about, yes the difference IS the opening. Now, I've said I could be wrong.

I'm still waiting for a reasonable scenario by which the hot spots can be explained merely with the addition of the subway tunnels. Until then I at least will be ignoring what I've so far been led to believe amounts to nonsense.