Untitled Normal Page\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p>
----- Original Message -----
\r\nFrom:<\/b> Eugene Tenenbaum
\r\nTo:<\/b> info@9-11Commission.gov ; Jamie.Gorelick@wilmerhale.com ; director@wwic.si.edu ; rben-veniste@mayerbrownrowe.com ; ffielding@wrf.com ; sladeg@prestongates.com ; jthompson@winston.com ; PZelikow@9-11Commission.gov ; CKojm@9-11Commission.gov ; DMarcus@9-11Commission.gov
\r\nSent:<\/b> Monday, July 19, 2004 4:50 AM
\r\nSubject:<\/b> FEMA contradicts laws of physics in the WTC\r\ncollapse Study!<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Dear 9\/11 Commissioner,<\/p>\r\n\r\n
Below\r\nis a very serious argument to verify the FEMA Study\r\nabout the WTC collapse. The Study seems to contradict\r\nlaws of physics at victim relatives’ expense maybe in\r\nsupport to the war in Iraq or else you will be able to\r\nfind out.<\/p>\r\n\r\n
It is just the beginning\r\nof a broader piece I intend to publish very soon. If you do\r\nnot verify it now, you will not be able to say latter that you\r\ndid not know about it, because I intend to include in my\r\npublication a note informing that I sent you this fragment today.\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\r\nSincerely, Eugene Tenenbaum<\/p>\r\n\r\n
<\/p>\r\n\r\n
FEMA contradicts\r\nlaws of physics in the WTC collapse Study!<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n By Eugene Tenenbaum<\/b>, 3985 Gouverneur Av, #1B,\r\nBronx, NY 10463, Copyright © 2004 Eugene Tenenbaum <\/p>\r\n\r\n The\r\nFederal Emergency Management Agency (or “FEMA”)\r\nmisleadingly implies in its Study’s key conclusion (or\r\n“the FEMA conclusion” or “the conclusion”),\r\nabout the WTC collapse, that the airplane impacts caused a\r\ndecisive damage, and so purposely skips analyzing a) the faulty\r\nstructural design, guarantying the towers to fall under any\r\nextensive fire, and b) the faulty design review and approval\r\nprocess that should have prevented it.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The conclusion in question is the last and\r\nunderlined sentence of the following quotation from “World\r\nTrade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection,\r\nPreliminary Observations, and Recommendations” FEMA 403\r\n• September 2002 • Second Printing <\/i>(or “FEMA\r\nStudy” or “the Study”) available, e.g. at http:\/\/www.fema.gov\/library\/wtcstudy.shtm<\/strong> or else:<\/p>\r\n\r\n FEMA Study, Chapter (or “Ch.”) 2, pp. 2-31\/32:\r\n“There are some important differences between the impact\r\nof the aircraft into WTC 2 and the impact into WTC 1. First,\r\nUnited Airlines Flight 175 was flying much faster, with an\r\nestimated speed of 590 mph, while American Airlines Flight 11 was\r\nflying at approximately 470 mph. The additional speed would have\r\ngiven the aircraft a greater ability to destroy portions of the\r\nstructure. The zone of aircraft impact was skewed toward the\r\nsoutheast corner of WTC 2, while the zone of impact on WTC 1 was\r\napproximately centered on the building’s north face. The\r\norientation of the core in WTC 2 was such that the aircraft\r\ndebris would only have to travel 35 feet across the floor before\r\nit began to impact and damage elements of the core structure. \r\nFinally, the zone of impact in WTC 2 was nearly 20 stories lower\r\nthan that in WTC 1, so columns in this area were carrying\r\nsubstantially larger loads. <\/i>It is possible, therefore,\r\nthat structural damage to WTC 2 was more severe than that to WTC\r\n1, partly explaining why WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1<\/u><\/i>.”<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Apparently, it looks… almost logical, if not\r\nfor two fundamental problems. First, less important - as\r\nthe airplane hit WTC 2 not perpendicularly, so only its speed’s\r\ncomponent perpendicular to the WTC 2 face caused the damage,\r\nbecause the parallel component slide along the face, therefore\r\nthe effective, damaging speed was less than 590 mph (it would be\r\nnice to have at least fifth grade’s observations, but maybe,\r\nbecause the Study contains only preliminary observations, so it\r\ndoes not rise above the fourth grade’s level)!<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Second, essential - as WTC 2 was hit at 80th\r\nFloor twice as low from the roof than WTC 1 was at 96th\r\nFloor, and there were 30 floors above the WTC 2 zone of impact (or\r\n“zone”), but only 15 floors above the WTC 1 zone, and\r\nso internal core (or “core”) columns at 80th\r\nFloor carried load twice of a load at 96th Floor, and\r\nexterior columns in the WTC 2 zone carried roughly 20 % more of a\r\nbuilding weight load then in the WTC 1 zone, but additionally\r\nstrength added to exterior columns against wind pressure load 30\r\nfloors below the roof was roughly four times that added only 15\r\nfloors below the roof, so exterior tubular columns in the WTC 2\r\nzone had roughly two and a quarter more of strength than in the\r\nWTC 1 zone, and internal core corner column in front of the WTC 2\r\nairplane nose had four times more of total strength than the mid-side\r\ncore outer column in front of the WTC 1 airplane nose. \r\nThere was no wind nor column wind load on the 9\/11.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Therefore, the<\/u> <\/u><\/b>structural damage to\r\nWTC 2 was LESS severe than that to WTC1<\/u><\/b> <\/u><\/b>on the contrary to the FEMA\r\nconclusion, because the columns in the WTC 2 zone had double-quadruple\r\nof a strength of WTC 1’s, but the WTC 2 airplane speed was\r\nonly 26 % greater, and its kinetic (destructive) energy only 58%\r\ngreater than the WTC 1 airplane, so much less than the double-quadruple\r\nstrength and mass advantage. In other words, the advantage\r\nof WTC 2 zone column strength over WTC 1’s was much greater\r\nthan the advantage of the WTC 2 airplane destructive energy over\r\nWTC 1’s.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n That observation is so simple and obvious that the\r\ncited above FEMA staggeringly false conclusion is difficult to\r\nexplain by a mistake. So, who decided to make it? Any\r\nidea why? Could the intended war against Iraq play a role? \r\nWould\r\nthe possibility of a faulty WTC design contributing to or even\r\ncausing its collapse have deterred the public opinion from\r\nsupporting the war the Administration had afraid of<\/u><\/b>? You are invited to answer these\r\nquestions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n To see, how obviously the FEMA conclusion is wrong (if\r\nyou forget from school), as well as to show it to five-year-old\r\nchildren, just borrow any blocks from them, build a column by\r\nstocking a few blocks vertically (one on another) and hit the\r\ncolumn in the middle, so it collapses. Next build again the\r\nsame column, put your hand on the top of it, press the hand down,\r\nand try to collapse the column by hitting like before. It\r\nis impossible, if you pressed strong enough!<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n “Greater load representing greater strength and\r\nresistance to damage” can be recognized in every\r\nkindergarten, but not in FEMA despite that actual FEMA Study’s\r\nFigures 2-27 and 2-16, as well as the similar Damage Area figures\r\nbelow, CLEARLY show that the structural damage to the exterior\r\ncolumns of WTC 2 was (34 %) smaller by area than of WTC 1,\r\nillustrating that simple law of physics at work.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The actual damage areas to WTC 1 and WTC 2 exterior\r\ncolumns were 1,607 and 1,044 square feet respectively! \r\nFollowing the pattern, the structural damage to internal columns\r\nof WTC 2 should have been also LESS severe than in WTC 1 opposite\r\nto the FEMA conclusion.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n FEMA - of course - could defend its conclusion\r\nclaming using the word \"possible\", but it implies the\r\ngreater chance of only two possible (much greater or smaller), as\r\nmeant chance \"that structural damage to WTC 2 was more\r\nsevere<\/u><\/i>\". To describe as possible a minuscule chance\r\nqualifies as MISREPRESENTATION,<\/strong> e.g. if a chance\r\nof a less severe structural damage to WTC 2 was 99.999 %, so the\r\nmore severe damage to it was still possible (with probability of\r\njust 0.001 %), so technically FEMA Study's report was (always)\r\ntrue, but with the reasonable doubts of 99.999 %!<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Maybe “incompetent” authors wrote FEMA\r\nStudy in a good faith? Their omission from the inner\r\ncore (or “core”) in the WTC 2 plan at the zone of\r\naircraft impact of the massive box columns - which greater\r\nstrength contradicts their conclusion - rather suggests a\r\nself-serving misrepresentation.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The misrepresented outer columns of the core at 84th\r\nFloor and below (within the zone of impact in WTC 2, but not in\r\nWTC 1’s) were significantly heavier boxes 36x14-16 inches\r\nmade of ¾- 4-inch plates (FEMA Study, p. B-2) than the actually\r\ndrawn I-shaped inner core’s outer columns in the WTC 1 zone\r\nof impact. Figure B-6 of FEMA Study shows an imprint of the\r\nI-shaped column on the heavier box column illustrating the huge\r\ndifference between them.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The massive boxes can be seen on photographs,<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n and in a WTC tower typical floor plan<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n available at http:\/\/www.greatbuildings.com\/cgi-bin\/gbc-drawing.cgi\/World_Trade_Center.html\/World_Trade_Tower.gbd; unlike in the following plans used by\r\nFEMA Study (Figure 2-1) indicating the huge structural\r\ndifferences between the inner cores in the zones of aircraft\r\nimpacts below 84th Floor in WTC 2 and way above 84th\r\nFloor in WTC 1.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Not showing in the FEMA Study (Figure 2-25) the\r\nmassive columns in the WTC 2 impact zone has been misleading,\r\nself-serving and unethical.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n One of Achilles’ heel were the “walls”\r\nof tower inner cores that unfortunately were just plain and not\r\nreinforced sheetrock (gypsum board) partitions with strength\r\ncomparable to heavy cardboard, and completely vulnerable to the\r\nslightly elevated pressure of even a foot kick, hence also to an\r\nimpact of the actual jet fuel fireballs, or, e.g. a propane gas\r\nblast, like in “Backdraft” (1991) film. So, it\r\nseems to be misrepresenting and self-serving<\/b> the following\r\n(underlined) FEMA Study reasoning from p. 2-15 unsubstantially\r\ninsinuating that wracking of the week and flimsy partitions (also\r\nceiling panels) at WTC 1 indicate structural damage (i.e. to\r\nthe columns<\/u>): “They <\/i>[witnesses] described\r\nextensive building debris in the eastern portion of the central\r\ncore, preventing their access to the easternmost exit stairway. <\/i>This\r\nsuggests the possibility of immediate partial collapse of framing\r\nin the central core<\/u><\/i>. These persons also described the\r\npresence of debris from collapsed partition walls from upper\r\nfloors in stairways located further to the west, <\/i>suggesting\r\nthe possibility of some structural damage in the northwestern\r\nportion of the core framing<\/u><\/i> as well.<\/i><\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Unfortunately, the destruction of flimsy core\r\npartitions deprived the stairwells and (elevator) shafts of their\r\nenclosure turning them into chimneys and the towers into stacks\r\nhelping the fires to spread heating bigger floor areas, of which\r\nthermal expansion faster collapsed the towers, but not\r\nnecessarily increased fire temperature. The issue of\r\npartitions is irrelevant for the structural analysis except for\r\nwidening the fires, heat distribution and subsequent thermal\r\nexpansion speeding up the collapse (increasing casualties), but\r\nnot changing the mechanism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n To find out, why the towers collapsed so\r\ndifferently, and so to analyze differences between the both\r\nairplanes impacts, it is useful to visualize the both zones of\r\naircraft impact on one plan with the correct massive columns only\r\non the WTC 2 side of impact (one plan’s half) and not on the\r\nWTC 1 side (other plan’s half), and showing the difference\r\nbetween them (in reality they were present or not at once on both\r\nsides), and disregarding the flimsy partition. One plan can\r\nshow also both areas of damage to the exterior columns, both\r\nairplanes at their angles of impact and at the positions of\r\nslowing down, where they were not able to inflict any further\r\ndamage to the exterior columns stronger than the airplanes’\r\nsoft bodies, when the surviving exterior columns begun damaging\r\nairplanes wing ends. Such plan shows also the trajectories\r\nof both airplane landing gears and engine found penetrating\r\nthrough the entire floors, and landing far outside the towers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The key question is, if the airplanes caused\r\ndamage to inner core columns, and, if yes, to what extend.<\/b><\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Let’s first start from an obviously false\r\nfollowing statement from p. 2-16 of FEMA Study claiming that\r\ndebris, which passed through the towers [almost intact!], “doubtlessly”\r\ncaused damage to core columns, and that the extend of this damage\r\ncannot be known (underlined): It is known that some\r\ndebris from the aircraft traveled completely through the\r\nstructure. For example,<\/i> […]. Part of the landing gear\r\nfrom this aircraft was found at the corner of West and Rector\r\nStreets, some five blocks south of the WTC complex (Figure 2-18).\r\nAs this debris passed through the building, <\/i>it\r\ndoubtless caused some level of damage to the structure<\/u><\/i>\r\nacross the floor plate, <\/i>including<\/u><\/i>,\r\npotentially, interior framing, <\/i>core columns<\/u><\/i>,\r\nframing at the east, south, and west walls, and the floors\r\nthemselves. <\/i>The exact extent of this damage will likely\r\nnever be known with certainty<\/u><\/i>.<\/i><\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n First – the phrase “some level of damage”\r\nis MANIPULATIVE and MISLEADING<\/b>, because it includes a near\r\nzero level of damage, so technically FEMA is right in any case,\r\nbecause that phrase means that there was or was not damage, i.e.\r\nit is truism meaning some level from near 0 to 100 %!<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Second – the debris, which passed completely\r\nthrough the towers almost intact keeping their initial\r\ntrajectories, certainly could not have caused any damage to\r\ncore columns, because it was virtually impossible to strongly hit\r\na column certainly causing a bounce in a different direction, and\r\nthen come back to the original trajectory requiring –\r\nimprobable - another bounce in the exactly opposite direction,\r\nand all that at 200 mph and without even a significant damage<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n to the passing engine, which was extremely fragile,\r\nor landing gear! So, the opposite of the above FEMA claim\r\nis true that the debris, which passed through the towers [almost\r\nintact and not changing their initial trajectories], certainly\r\ndid not cause any structural damage to the towers. So,\r\ntheir free fall can be used to determine their speed of passing\r\nthrough the cores after the initial airplane impacts on the\r\nexterior walls. And that is a critical conclusion FEMA avoided at all\r\ncost<\/b>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Third – damage to core columns, if any, could\r\nhave been causes by debris, which did not pass through the towers\r\n– unlike in the above FEMA statement.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Fourth – once the speed of debris passing\r\nthrough the cores is known, it is possible to model the exact\r\nextend of damage [to core columns] with a high degree of\r\ncertainty opposite\r\nto the <\/strong>FEMA insinuation<\/b> underlined just above. If the speed was\r\nlow, because of the enormous strength of the exterior walls\r\nabsorbing a vast majority of the initial impact energy, it is possible to\r\nexclude any significant damage at all, and opposite to FEMA\r\nStudy<\/b>.<\/b> The\r\npassing debris issue is critical!<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n It is obvious that the airplanes entering the towers\r\nwere constantly loosing speed. The floor plan above shows\r\nthe positions of both airplanes fully filling the damage holes in\r\nthe exterior walls between the intact exterior columns on both\r\nsides of the damage areas shown above and on Figures 2-27 and 2-16\r\nof FEMA Study. At these positions the airplanes lost so\r\nmuch of their initial speeds that their movement was too slow to\r\ncause any further damage to the hard steel exterior columns by\r\ntheir soft aluminum bodies, and the intact exterior columns on\r\nboth sides of the damage areas started to cut out the airplane\r\nwing ends exceeding the damage areas perimeters.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Knowing parameters of the exterior columns and whole\r\ntowers, wings and Boeing airplanes (they were designed and tested\r\nin the computer), it is easily and cheaply to simulate the\r\nimpacts in the computer, and to get these speeds, but FEMA failed\r\nto do so. Why? There were successful Flight 800 or\r\nshuttle Columbia crash recreation efforts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Instead, FEMA Study (p. 2-22) provides, e.g. a\r\nuseless number of gigawatts of energy were released by both\r\nfires, or misleadingly speculates about temperature allegedly\r\nreaching 1,400 °C melting point of steel (p. A-12, 17) implying\r\nsuch a possibility. FEMA Study provides references to the\r\nvery outdated office fire experiments in 1972 (p. A-3), but DOES\r\nNOT conduct any computer simulation of the actual WTC fires, like\r\n– though maybe not perfect - the MSC Marc simulation (http:\/\/members.fortunecity.com\/911\/wtc\/wtc-microsoft.htm).<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The MSC Marc simulation is useful allowing to\r\nconclude that “It is clear that the fires could not\/did\r\nnot get much above 825°C (and were almost certainly cooler)<\/i>”\r\nand also to ask “what caused the fire sprinkler system to\r\nfail within a few minutes of the impact<\/i>”, though the\r\nincluded there Boeing 747 collision simulation is out of touch\r\nwith a WTC reality, because the 767s were less than a half weight\r\nof a 747, and the WTC tower structure nor the 767s’ speed\r\nwere not reflected.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Coming back to the floor plan above showing the\r\nairplane positions inside the towers, at which they were too slow\r\nto inflict any structural damage to both - the exterior columns\r\nand stronger inner core columns, the question remains, if\r\nairplane debris reaching these positions could have damaged the\r\ninner core columns within the front of both airplanes shown on\r\nthe plan above.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n There are four (4) inner core columns within the\r\nfront of both airplanes. Because both airplanes shattered\r\non impact and the front section of the WTC 1 airplane could not\r\nsurvive to reach the inner pair of columns of the inner core, so\r\nfurther considerations are limited only to the outer pair of\r\ncolumns of the inner core of WTC 1. Because of a greater\r\nload and strength of columns at the zone of airplane impact in\r\nWTC 2 than in WTC 1 (indicated by the smaller area of damage to\r\nexterior columns), it is certain that during the impacts the WTC\r\n2 airplane was slowing down more rapidly than the WTC 1 airplane,\r\nand its front was damaged more than of WTC 1’s, hence the\r\ntwo (2) furthest inner core box columns within the front of the\r\nWTC 2 airplane can be excluded from a damage consideration.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The almost equal distances from the towers of the\r\nfallen almost intact<\/u> airplane parts after completely\r\npenetrating the towers prove that the WTC 2 airplane was slowed\r\ndown on impact more than the WTC 1 airplane. The schematic\r\nhere (FEMA Study Figure 1-3) shows the areas of landing of the\r\nairplane debris after flying over the whole floors and falling\r\ndown far beyond of the opposite tower sides to the impact sides\r\nof the towers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Landing gears of both airplanes completely\r\npenetrated both towers. The WTC 2 landing gear (wheel) fell\r\n1212 ft (370 m) from WTC 2, and the WTC 1 one – 1310 ft (399\r\nm) from WTC 1. The WTC 2 zone of impact was 994 ft (303 m)\r\nabove the ground, and the WTC 1 zone – 1178 ft (359 m). \r\nThere is a simple formula – on approx. seventh grade level -\r\nto calculate speed of projectile at constant downward\r\nacceleration (www.physics.rutgers.edu\/ugrad\/123\/lab\/M04-Projectile_rev.doc) - in our case – of 32 ft\/s2\r\n(9.8 m\/s2) caused by the gravity force, if\r\ndisregarding air resistance on falling body that shortens\r\ndistance of falling: velocity=(distance of projectile fall)*{[(constant\r\ndownward acceleration)\/[(height of fall)*2]}^1\/2.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n That simple formula (without considering\r\nair resistance) allowed calculating the speeds of the landing\r\ngears exiting WTC 2 and WTC 1 at 105.3 and 104.3 mph respectively. \r\nThe actual speeds were higher, but also almost identical, because\r\nof similar air resistance. Air resistance (drag) is a\r\nproduct of air density (1.225 kg\/m^3), silhouette area A <\/i>of\r\nbody (its area as seen from the front), dimensionless constant C\r\n<\/i>called the drag coefficient (<\/b>that depends on the shape\r\nof body), and squared velocity of body divided by doubled mass of\r\nbody. (Projectile motion with air resistance description\r\ncan be found, e.g. at http:\/\/wps.aw.com\/wps\/media\/objects\/877\/898586\/topics\/topic01.pdf, and its programming – at http:\/\/www.nyu.edu\/classes\/rosenberg\/AirResistance.html.)<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Calculating speeds of the landing gears\r\nexiting WTC 2 and WTC 1 with air resistance, two cases were\r\nconsidered. First: gear mass m<\/i>=150 kg, wheel height\r\nof 1.2 m, wheel width of 0.4 m, so area A<\/i>=0.48 m^2, drag\r\ncoefficient C<\/i>=0.5. Second: m<\/i>=200kg, A<\/i>=0.6\r\nm^2, C<\/i>=1.0. In the first case (m<\/i>=150kg, A<\/i>=0.48\r\nm^2, C<\/i>=0.5) the EXIT floor speeds of the landing gears\r\nfrom WTC 2 and WTC 1 were 122.4 and 123 mph respectively, and the\r\npreceding ENTRY floor higher speeds - needed to travel through\r\nthe whole 210 ft (64 m) span of each tower floor after the impact\r\n(from initial impact exterior wall to exit window), and\r\nleaving at the previously calculated EXIT speeds - were 130.2\r\nand 130.9 mph respectively. In the second, conservative\r\ncase (m<\/i>=200 kg, A<\/i>=0.6 m^2, C<\/i>=1.0) the EXIT from\r\nWTC 2 and WTC 1 speeds were 139.8 and 143.2 mph, and the floor\r\nENTRY floor speeds were 156.6 and 160.4 mph, respectively.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Recordings and a simulation (http:\/\/realex.nist.gov\/WTCanimation2.ram) show that after the initial airplane\r\nimpact the resulting fireball expanded through the tower - like a\r\nvery strong hurricane (much over 100 mph) - ripping off panels of\r\nelevation falling down beneath flames, so also leveling\r\neverything inside, but columns, and leaving no obstacles slowing\r\ndown the landing gears and engine traveling through the towers\r\nwithin that fireball hurricane.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Even, if adding a bounce or two from the\r\nfloor inside the towers not much changing trajectory, but\r\nincreasing the landing gears speed from the calculated 160 mph\r\nwithout bounces to around 200 mph with bounces, the plans still\r\nlost more than 50 % of their initial speeds on the initial\r\nimpacts with exterior columns, so more than 75% of their\r\ndestructive (kinetic) energy (proportional to velocity squared v<\/i>^2\r\nand mass m<\/i>, so when velocity drops by 1\/2, energy drops by\r\n¾ to 1\/4, because [1\/2]^2=1\/4), so the airplane destructive\r\npower to damage inner core columns decreased at least four (4!)\r\ntimes after the initial impacts, FEMA Study ignores and\r\nMISREPRESENTS <\/b>on p. 2-16 claiming that “<\/b>The\r\nexact extent of this damage will likely never be known with\r\ncertainty<\/i>” manipulatively implying<\/b> that some\r\ndamage had to occur and nothing can be done, because its exact\r\nextend cannot be known with certainty, and that is necessary to\r\nsolve the mechanism of the collapse, and anything else is not\r\ngood enough, and so it is appropriate not even attempt to assess\r\nthe damage, nor to conduct a structural analysis based on\r\nprobabilities, nor to consider more than one possibility, nor to\r\nconsider that no significant damage to the columns could have\r\nhappened at all at 200 mph most likely, i.e. that it is fine to\r\nrefrain from further considerations, and it is the only way to\r\nproceed, because there is “no smoking gun”.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The “no smoking gun” theory\r\nexcusing from an effort, if problems were difficult, does not\r\napply to positions including a full responsibility for dealing\r\nwith the problems especially, if someone else could have sat down\r\nfor a half of year and solve them. The use of the “no\r\nsmoking gun” excuse and not even attempting solving problems\r\nby those, who are responsible, proves their incompetence or worse. \r\nBefore using it, look in your job description and think twice\r\nbefore claiming the “no smoking gun” excuse! A\r\n“smoking gun” is not served on a silver platter. \r\nIt grows and becomes more visible while you work intelligently to\r\nsolve a problem, and elements without an apparent meaning or\r\nconnection start to build a whole picture, and a smoking gun\r\nemerges becoming more visible step by step.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The exterior columns slowed down the WTC 2\r\nairplane impacting at 590 mph more than the exterior columns\r\nslowed the WTC 1 airplane impacting at 470mph with only 63 % of\r\nthe kinetic energy of the WTC 2 airplane, to almost identical\r\nlanding gear exit speeds. Additionally, the debris passing\r\nentirely through WTC 2 did not go through the inner core unlike\r\nin WTC 1, but near the core, so on the debris path were no\r\ncolumns to bounce from slowing WTC2 debris down unlike in WTC \r\n1. It means that the landing gear passing entirely through\r\nWTC 1 did not bounced as well, because, if it had retaining on\r\nexit the same speed as the WTC 2 debris without bouncing, the\r\nspeed of debris in WTC 1 would have been actually greater than in\r\nWTC 2 rendering the FEMA conclusion just plain insane<\/strong>. \r\nThe fact that the exit speeds were almost identical clearly\r\nindicates that the WTC 2 exterior columns were much stronger and\r\nresistant to damage than the columns of WTC 1, as they supposed\r\nto be, because of their greater load. By the same\r\nprincipal, the WTC 2 zone of impact inner core columns were much\r\nstronger than of WTC 1. So, after passing the exterior columns with\r\nsimilar speeds in both towers, the airplane debris could not\r\ndamage the much stronger inner columns of WTC 2 more than those\r\nof WTC1 with 100% certainty and contrary to the FEMA conclusion<\/b>!<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The fall of the WTC 2 airplane engine not much\r\nfarther from the landing gear fall indicates that the landing\r\ngear was not slowed down much inside the tower, because the gear\r\nbehind the engine in the airplane impacted a moment latter at a\r\nslightly lower speed of the slowing down by the impact airplane\r\nwhile the slimmer engine was still rotating. This points to\r\nthe initial impact, as the separation event that did not distort\r\nmuch the trajectories, but certainly trashed the wings slightly\r\nrotating them back, separated the engines pushing their\r\ntrajectories slightly outward, and also had to free the landing\r\ngears leaving not much of the airplane front fuselages as a\r\nwhole, which had to further slow down plowing through the\r\nconcrete (which doubled its strength after 30 years) of the floor(s)\r\nin order to reach the inner core columns to damage them. \r\nSo, the exit speeds of the debris passing entirely through the\r\ntowers are certain indicators that the initial impacts slowed\r\ndown the airplanes by more than a half of their initial speeds. \r\nSo, it seems like FEMA purposely neglected to conduct computer\r\nsimulations of the initial impacts to avoid reaching a right\r\nconclusion<\/b>!<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Watching bad airplane accidents at landings, it is\r\napparent that they are very fragile and brake on impact with hard\r\nsurfaces at landing speeds. So, both airplanes hitting the\r\ntowers at maximum speeds were disintegrating on initial impact.\r\n The superimposed airplane profiles not fitting well the\r\nexterior structural damage areas clearly indicate shifts of\r\nairplane parts hitting the towers latter (farther back in the\r\nairplane) from their initial location within the profiles. \r\nThese shifts could have been only caused by airplane deformation\r\nresulting from the disintegration on the initial impacts. E.g.\r\njust after the initial moment of impact the airplane wings\r\nstarted to roll up causing the damage above their initial\r\npositions, as indicated above by the damage to the exterior\r\ncolumns above the superimposed airplane profiles, etc.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n The airplane disintegration on initial impact is\r\nsupported by the fall of the WTC 2 airplane engine slightly\r\nfurther than of the same airplane’s landing gear, because\r\nthe engine - more up front than the landing gear - hit the tower,\r\nseparated from the airplane earlier, and at a slightly higher\r\nairplane’s speed (decreasing on impact) than the landing\r\ngear impacting a moment latter at a slightly lower speed. \r\nOnly a small deviation of the WTC 2 part trajectories from that\r\nairplane direction before impact also points to the airplanes\r\ndisintegration on the initial impacts despite that the WTC 1\r\nairplane landing gear probably slightly bounced from a column\r\ndeviating from the airplane trajectory before exiting the tower.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\n Disintegration on the initial impact means that\r\nresulting separated airplane pieces lacked significant energy to\r\nexert damaging pressure on inner core columns protected by their\r\nload and strength much greater than exterior columns of the same\r\nfloor. The flying pieces (except the hard engine shafts, as\r\nPeter Bressington of Ove Arup & Partners, Consulting\r\nEngineers explained showing a simulation at 33 min. of\r\nInventions, Building to Extremes show on PBS) did not have energy\r\nto structurally damage the inner core columns contrary to the FEMA\r\nconclusion<\/b>. FEMA\r\nchose not to conduct cheap computer impact simulations maybe to\r\navoid pointing toward revealing tower design inadequacies\r\nreducing reasons to go to war with Iraq, but at the expense\r\nof orphans and widows.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/fireside.designcommunity.com\/topic-1790.html","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"image\/gif","summary":"Had WTC been built correctly, it should have burned out and not collapsed, causing smaller material damage and much fewer victims among almost 1000, who died under the zones of impact in and around the both towers. Because the retribution should be proportional to the injury, so exposing design flaws causing the WTC collapse would have weakened the argument for the retribution war in Iraq. Hiding design flaws blame implied more retribution, i.e. a stronger argument for the war.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2004\/09\/collapse1.gif","filesize":"7.0 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2004\/09\/116618.php","image":{"original":"\/uploads\/2004\/09\/collapse1.gif"}},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}
\r\nJul. 17, 2004<\/p>\r\n\r\n