|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:42 pm Post subject: WTC collapse: help to get Constr Docs from Port Authority NY |
    |
|
If you know, please, advise (post) the titles of the Construction Documents (preferably “As-built”) used for erection of the WTC towers. The Port Authority of NT & NJ has them, but requires specifying titles in order to allow access according to Freedom of Information law.
Otherwise, Port Authority requires $19,040 just to search their archive in the following statement made in the letter of August 3, 2004 (re: Freedom of Information Reference No. 9346): “It is estimated that it will take 560 hours of staff time at a composite rate of $34.00 per hour, for a total of $19,040 to search through the surviving World Trade Center construction documents for all “blueprints” of World Trade Center towers from the project’s inception in the late 1960’s to its collapse in 2001”. They do not accept the widely used term “Construction Documents (blueprints)”.
Specifically, there are needed the structural (and eventually architectural) construction documents (plans, details, sections, manuals, etc.) for the 93-99 and 5 top Floors of WTC 1, and for the 77-84 and 5 top Floors of WTC 2 in order to further advance the WTC collapse analysis (see the article below titled “FEMA misled the public about the WTC collapse!” initially intended for the 9/11 Commission).
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
that's much clearer for me - excellent illustrations.
you have included some details on temperatures, speeds, etc. that I have had a lot of trouble finding.
keep at it.
A.Martian
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Martin,
WTC tower structure resistance to temperature is one of the critical issues of the WTC collapse. If proven that the WTC could have collapsed below 300 deg. C of any reason, and consistently with the looking quite cold on tapes WTC tower fires, e.g. because the floor slabs contained silica fume to cure concrete fast, but also causing explosive spalling (disintegration) of concrete at 240 to 280 deg. C, than the Chapter A of FEMA Study (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) would be just crap trying convince unconvincingly (against the visible reality) that the WTC tower fire could have reached as high as 1400 deg. C, but actually diverting from faulty design.
Mechanical Properties of High Performance Concrete After Exposure to Elevated Temperatures. NISTIR 6475; 39 p. March 2000 at http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire00/PDF/f00014.pdf, which abstract at http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire00/art014.html says: “Explosive spalling during heating was experienced with two HPC types that contained silica fume. This spalling occurred during the release of crystalline, chemically bound, water at temperatures ranging from about 240 deg C to 280 deg C. Explosive spalling was not experienced with either of the concrete mixtures that did not use silica fume.”
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
I am very surprised that a temperture of just 300 c. shuld disintergrate the concrete compoments , now there is so much interesting facts in your pages and digest the information realy make a lot of comments ,but first of all and what is in my mind all the time, is that in the end all these facts point to a structure where all weight is distribuated with much more care than WTC7 but forgetting the "material ability" of a atructure where the outher shell is obviously the important structural member, and the internal towers floors and stringers. is the secondary member of the building structure.
The conclution must be one or several ,but I can not emagine that you can blame one particular foult one specific material ,realy I think that to learn from the collapse of the Towers you must learn from the collapse of WTC7 at the same time, ------- they each carried potential foults but also shared the same lead in building technology even the Towers was a unique engineering masterpiece then what shuld be learned must be what make a difference in the much greater amount of structures build, very much alike WTC7.
Now if you asked me what the weakest sort of structure I could emagine , I would say "card house" , I would say steel beam boxwork as just like you pointed, what happen when forces are out of control in a rigid framework where no member is supported unless there are a vertical member nearby. The Towers were fighting for hours a much more furious impac ,where the surrounding structures that fell, suffered in a much different way ------- fire and heat was in any case what made the steel beams expand and berak the fittings ; now when do anyone se that what we need is a method without profiles and fittings, without hangers and bolts.
A method where each member support and is carried by all others ,where expantion is no problem where fire protection can be build in, but this must be soon, much more shuld have been the response.
P.C.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kassehus14.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1187
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Per's expression "card house" seems to be one of the central points.
a slightly simplistic question - suppose this really had been an accident.
such a thing could happen - two planes perhaps touch in mid-air, one crashes into the WTC, the other unable to control its flight (e.g. exactly as happens if the tail-fin is damaged) crashes into the second tower twenty minutes later. With the levels of temperature and the speeds that Eugene is indicating, the effects would surely not have been so different from the effects of the deliberate attacks.
what would have happened to the towers - would they have collapsed ?
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I apologize for misspelling Martian above.
We do not learn much from the WTC tower collapse, because we already new that inflexible structure with trusses used in the WTC towers and nowhere else - not by accident - has not been suitable for tall buildings, and the collapse only confirmed it. The traditionally used framework of columns, beams, and bolts (or welded) with diagonal stiffening, but flexible, is the right one.
Using the inflexible structure with trusses can be explained only by a negligent (criminally?), risky and arrogant belief (I cannot figure out anything better, so what I did must be good) in the corrupted process of the very delayed project - that a fire cannot happen dismissed latter by installing sprinkler systems in the both towers, but not remedying the inflexibility of the tower structures (nor the location of the fuel tank in the WTC 7 basement).
WTC 1 fell after 1 hour, and 43 minutes, and WTC 2 – in just 56 min. after the initial impacts. The tower structures could not have reached a high temperature heated by a huge inflow of cold 12 deg. C air - taken through the initial damage holes and all windows without glazing lost to the fireballs - to be heated first, and only then passing its heat to the structures, while moving fast up in chimneys of fallen floor slabs and elevator shafts. The jet fuel burned out (and evaporated) in just 3 minutes after the airplane impacts.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Tenenbaum
To: 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
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:50 AM
Subject: FEMA contradicts laws of physics in the WTC collapse Study!
Dear 9/11 Commissioner,
Below is a very serious argument to verify the FEMA Study about the WTC collapse. The Study seems to contradict laws of physics at victim relatives’ expense maybe in support to the war in Iraq or else you will be able to find out.
It is just the beginning of a broader piece I intend to publish very soon. If you do not verify it now, you will not be able to say latter that you did not know about it, because I intend to include in my publication a note informing that I sent you this fragment today.
Sincerely, Eugene Tenenbaum
FEMA contradicts laws of physics in the WTC collapse Study!
By Eugene Tenenbaum, 3985 Gouverneur Av, #1B, Bronx, NY 10463, Copyright © 2004 Eugene Tenenbaum
Jul. 17, 2004
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (or “FEMA”) misleadingly implies in its Study’s key conclusion (or “the FEMA conclusion” or “the conclusion”), about the WTC collapse, that the airplane impacts caused a decisive damage, and so purposely skips analyzing a) the faulty structural design, guarantying the towers to fall under any extensive fire, and b) the faulty design review and approval process that should have prevented it.
The conclusion in question is the last and underlined sentence of the following quotation from “World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations” FEMA 403 • September 2002 • Second Printing (or “FEMA Study” or “the Study”) available, e.g. at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm or else:
FEMA Study, Chapter (or “Ch.”) 2, pp. 2-31/32: “There are some important differences between the impact of the aircraft into WTC 2 and the impact into WTC 1. First, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying much faster, with an estimated speed of 590 mph, while American Airlines Flight 11 was flying at approximately 470 mph. The additional speed would have given the aircraft a greater ability to destroy portions of the structure. The zone of aircraft impact was skewed toward the southeast corner of WTC 2, while the zone of impact on WTC 1 was approximately centered on the building’s north face. The orientation of the core in WTC 2 was such that the aircraft debris would only have to travel 35 feet across the floor before it began to impact and damage elements of the core structure. Finally, the zone of impact in WTC 2 was nearly 20 stories lower than that in WTC 1, so columns in this area were carrying substantially larger loads. It is possible, therefore, that structural damage to WTC 2 was more severe than that to WTC 1, partly explaining why WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1.”
Apparently, it looks… almost logical, if not for two fundamental problems. First, less important - as the airplane hit WTC 2 not perpendicularly, so only its speed’s component perpendicular to the WTC 2 face caused the damage, because the parallel component slide along the face, therefore the effective, damaging speed was less than 590 mph (it would be nice to have at least fifth grade’s observations, but maybe, because the Study contains only preliminary observations, so it does not rise above the fourth grade’s level)!
Second, essential - as WTC 2 was hit at 80th Floor twice as low from the roof than WTC 1 was at 96th Floor, and there were 30 floors above the WTC 2 zone of impact (or “zone”), but only 15 floors above the WTC 1 zone, and so internal core (or “core”) columns at 80th Floor carried load twice of a load at 96th Floor, and exterior columns in the WTC 2 zone carried roughly 20 % more of a building weight load then in the WTC 1 zone, but additionally strength added to exterior columns against wind pressure load 30 floors below the roof was roughly four times that added only 15 floors below the roof, so exterior tubular columns in the WTC 2 zone had roughly two and a quarter more of strength than in the WTC 1 zone, and internal core corner column in front of the WTC 2 airplane nose had four times more of total strength than the mid-side core outer column in front of the WTC 1 airplane nose. There was no wind nor column wind load on the 9/11.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0ZAD*AhYgfF8GxRcVyVzcL7aG!mmrSR2NsU5PqhGOvn7PgTZzrxeLt*D5bqc*LcmBt!Z4Rc7jo1ZJoItKY5nCSinLII3SDBo*9RrlS0xxmynO6BasGYQzDzv9HvjwNyVlqFDfEHwMkAkiSVhYWIDCrg/WTC1+2Col.jpg?dc=4675487510671384236[/img]
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQAQAx0fDQBskysIF68URrBtCmswiRuhd706!pIoTc*9zrSZyUdUG9SBM9bSS7X2bzUcAT*qge8IbqNK5kh40g*!ZKnyO3eMINRhC1NMwPUfRPFNgIQA6VavBa7zG!ak*SU0LS1TURWgbZbAVtxnVA/15-30Flr.gif?dc=4675487510799686045[/img]
Therefore, the structural damage to WTC 2 was LESS severe than that to WTC1 on the contrary to the FEMA conclusion, because the columns in the WTC 2 zone had double-quadruple of a strength of WTC 1’s, but the WTC 2 airplane speed was only 26 % greater, and its kinetic (destructive) energy only 58% greater than the WTC 1 airplane, so much less than the double-quadruple strength and mass advantage. In other words, the advantage of WTC 2 zone column strength over WTC 1’s was much greater than the advantage of the WTC 2 airplane destructive energy over WTC 1’s.
That observation is so simple and obvious that the cited above FEMA staggeringly false conclusion is difficult to explain by a mistake. So, who decided to make it? Any idea why? Could the intended war against Iraq play a role? Would the possibility of a faulty WTC design contributing to or even causing its collapse have deterred the public opinion from supporting the war the Administration had afraid of? You are invited to answer these questions.
To see, how obviously the FEMA conclusion is wrong (if you forget from school), as well as to show it to five-year-old children, just borrow any blocks from them, build a column by stocking a few blocks vertically (one on another) and hit the column in the middle, so it collapses. Next build again the same column, put your hand on the top of it, press the hand down, and try to collapse the column by hitting like before. It is impossible, if you pressed strong enough!
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDxAlYgbHGVQllhuTTvUFg8hHHStuLS9ZcmbVDLRT9KPfmlNjg4pZMfRYKqJD3h70M0eRcNKwMSP2OM*Au3nyPi7EzqdRywmCQTB6q2JUXI!x1k17EMWLvfgyxTINiR*r78Y64JCRj!XltITro4Aw/collapse.gif?dc=4675487510967116596[/img]
“Greater load representing greater strength and resistance to damage” can be recognized in every kindergarten, but not in FEMA despite that actual FEMA Study’s Figures 2-27 and 2-16, as well as the similar Damage Area figures below, CLEARLY show that the structural damage to the exterior columns of WTC 2 was (34 %) smaller by area than of WTC 1, illustrating that simple law of physics at work.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YwDmAo0geIje3Bz9a8sOwBcAi6kHpDrusCKWOWHMQcKl1V7wdf7xVwJuJTn4q6GXEsPuWPmTS1A2ZgkSLhgOAyisGfMY4gkq0BVvUsflIAxPIyM5y8hDji9OWy88n*Qj!8l0OWzHfzLhyPWPhAC0Ew/WTC1holePh.jpg?dc=4675487511123431135[/img]
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YgDlAvsfzFLe3Bz9a8sOwAYdiI5tA4oB4m2K2P*RoSFnuAnxbUGsIuGk3vBL2vMV8!Kt9OEeppmZG2mNhMGp95Jm21dKQkp4FaMumnsmymXZex9tnnQSzVpE7jJv6D5Wt2CStcc4EG5wv5c8b9Gr1w/WTC1hole1.gif?dc=4675487518034240309[/img]
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YgDlAvwfKVOLZTeatSWAD7IZ1VNnu3EBkTMfD7cUcCwtQKKaGq6OkP7t3XbINJDRackzZ2nQGNRHX!btSSgcOLnEZBybi!hjQjAYkfiEg4oPxnUZz3UFMaB2mqNTuxPZI2*zEPJkvg9R7YIMVa331A/WTC2hole1.gif?dc=4675487518156626198[/img]
The actual damage areas to WTC 1 and WTC 2 exterior columns were 1,607 and 1,044 square feet respectively! Following the pattern, the structural damage to internal columns of WTC 2 should have been also LESS severe than in WTC 1 opposite to the FEMA conclusion.
FEMA - of course - could defend its conclusion claming using the word "possible", but it implies the greater chance of only two possible (much greater or smaller), as meant chance "that structural damage to WTC 2 was more severe". To describe as possible a minuscule chance qualifies as MISREPRESENTATION, e.g. if a chance of a less severe structural damage to WTC 2 was 99.999 %, so the more severe damage to it was still possible (with probability of just 0.001 %), so technically FEMA Study's report was (always) true, but with the reasonable doubts of 99.999 %!
Maybe “incompetent” authors wrote FEMA Study in a good faith? Their omission from the inner core (or “core”) in the WTC 2 plan at the zone of aircraft impact of the massive box columns - which greater strength contradicts their conclusion - rather suggests a self-serving misrepresentation.
The misrepresented outer columns of the core at 84th Floor and below (within the zone of impact in WTC 2, but not in WTC 1’s) were significantly heavier boxes 36x14-16 inches made of ¾- 4-inch plates (FEMA Study, p. B-2) than the actually drawn I-shaped inner core’s outer columns in the WTC 1 zone of impact. Figure B-6 of FEMA Study shows an imprint of the I-shaped column on the heavier box column illustrating the huge difference between them.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQD9At0f40RScgfIascOpP4P5z6f07*plVfr!aXxZBGd3KxMVyEcPDoJh8AlJUIX1WNlz!HdydvxqRzIPuM7UATZBkmD3QW5tA6nCbl*XPwChKeHEHTLkCFX3XNMra9EXWRb5eWm*FeD!tpSuFstbw/85flrCol.jpg?dc=4675487518322263997[/img]
The massive boxes can be seen on photographs,
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAAAIcfOyOk3PsR9fq5WkWywWSSVYKQJGITcvGMAYA67XNM8R9fu8RTV16D4O58qczSy1bUJo8KrmpV!dPpWnBhGVRnCB19wxSEAB5r!9ryKW4dEUulkoSKStL7Ow61Dj2Ra*wsHZ0/Constr.jpg?dc=4675487518414701238[/img]
and in a WTC tower typical floor plan
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YgDlAjgggGc3Lg0AOqnBpChsZW0wB0iu!X2S!M5Qv0PB8GVYKFUI0TVvdLDjcoevBzU1u2tEq60r1YY!wTLodpv3F4Du220Au89NbXOm0n4DhHpCbiJIxsqQv1s*ny!LVt1*ZuST68qoyCnsAxkTPA/80flrCore.gif?dc=4675487518524784431[/img]
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 FEMA Study (Figure 2-1) indicating the huge structural differences between the inner cores in the zones of aircraft impacts below 84th Floor in WTC 2 and way above 84th Floor in WTC 1.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YwAAAGkgEXw3Lg0AOqnBpFVuLEdP0vFvpTAOD3ZpX3WbLeQZDeRY64SBBsyFubgUbmJJ11DppS9BgpW0Qu!TUfqYeLd6Lw6omVX*GFoHdZmpDxfi*408MFq*REL8Dz4wTbKloHqHq!FDpYKnCmtEYw/80flrCore1.gif?dc=4675487518629650035[/img]
Not showing in the FEMA Study (Figure 2-25) the massive columns in the WTC 2 impact zone has been misleading, self-serving and unethical.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YADpAo0fqCZ*VKqqq94!olc4SQ4NUU7enxWC41wkZGYvvw!PUEqyyMElG6E*1qrEzdsPbAcZJJtZCxwiMTd*Wm6723X*4NsfKCu7d7d55XsONERMhJ*eAWjw*m0JRBR3xLbV58DrYnTXcl0CTW96aQ/80floor.gif?dc=4675487518724027964[/img]
One of Achilles’ heel were the “walls” of tower inner cores that unfortunately were just plain and not reinforced sheetrock (gypsum board) partitions with strength comparable to heavy cardboard, and completely vulnerable to the slightly elevated pressure of even a foot kick, hence also to an impact of the actual jet fuel fireballs, or, e.g. a propane gas blast, like in “Backdraft” (1991) film. So, it seems to be misrepresenting and self-serving the following (underlined) FEMA Study reasoning from p. 2-15 unsubstantially insinuating that wracking of the week and flimsy partitions (also ceiling panels) at WTC 1 indicate structural damage (i.e. to the columns): “They [witnesses] described extensive building debris in the eastern portion of the central core, preventing their access to the easternmost exit stairway. This suggests the possibility of immediate partial collapse of framing in the central core. These persons also described the presence of debris from collapsed partition walls from upper floors in stairways located further to the west, suggesting the possibility of some structural damage in the northwestern portion of the core framing as well.
Unfortunately, the destruction of flimsy core partitions deprived the stairwells and (elevator) shafts of their enclosure turning them into chimneys and the towers into stacks helping the fires to spread heating bigger floor areas, of which thermal expansion faster collapsed the towers, but not necessarily increased fire temperature. The issue of partitions is irrelevant for the structural analysis except for widening the fires, heat distribution and subsequent thermal expansion speeding up the collapse (increasing casualties), but not changing the mechanism.
To find out, why the towers collapsed so differently, and so to analyze differences between the both airplanes impacts, it is useful to visualize the both zones of aircraft impact on one plan with the correct massive columns only on the WTC 2 side of impact (one plan’s half) and not on the WTC 1 side (other plan’s half), and showing the difference between them (in reality they were present or not at once on both sides), and disregarding the flimsy partition. One plan can show also both areas of damage to the exterior columns, both airplanes at their angles of impact and at the positions of slowing down, where they were not able to inflict any further damage to the exterior columns stronger than the airplanes’ soft bodies, when the surviving exterior columns begun damaging airplanes wing ends. Such plan shows also the trajectories of both airplane landing gears and engine found penetrating through the entire floors, and landing far outside the towers.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQATAxwg7VuY3ofdGX!TVfzhSeUhGuaNbBKo7wP5HSf5pHM4bqUppPT!2jxcIZcUVkLBam2Txn6OEryBd*gW*fYalSmmsh*G8W0YH!bz*eT9n7Vq*JtUeQUGCTHrbJdOYOajfPBZB9Dez3kA4kRNBA/2airplan.gif?dc=4675487518849622352[/img]
The key question is, if the airplanes caused damage to inner core columns, and, if yes, to what extend.
Let’s first start from an obviously false following statement from p. 2-16 of FEMA Study claiming that debris, which passed through the towers [almost intact!], “doubtlessly” caused damage to core columns, and that the extend of this damage cannot be known (underlined): It is known that some debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example, […]. Part of the landing gear from this aircraft was found at the corner of West and Rector Streets, some five blocks south of the WTC complex (Figure 2-1 . As this debris passed through the building, it doubtless caused some level of damage to the structure across the floor plate, including, potentially, interior framing, core columns, framing at the east, south, and west walls, and the floors themselves. The exact extent of this damage will likely never be known with certainty.
First – the phrase “some level of damage” is MANIPULATIVE and MISLEADING, because it includes a near zero level of damage, so technically FEMA is right in any case, because that phrase means that there was or was not damage, i.e. it is truism meaning some level from near 0 to 100 %!
Second – the debris, which passed completely through the towers almost intact keeping their initial trajectories, certainly could not have caused any damage to core columns, because it was virtually impossible to strongly hit a column certainly causing a bounce in a different direction, and then come back to the original trajectory requiring – improbable - another bounce in the exactly opposite direction, and all that at 200 mph and without even a significant damage
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YgDlAiIgrl8b5b*fFoHtXAuT1pzr2sNgk2Wj7ask5s0B4oDTMgLHyFe6hEqIfGgg09MoiWKjmyLg9uF!tf*SfN3acdcS8C7Ti4Il70tQ1FPFlnONIrZDKGjnFf8cYIMqd8HFo56QIDSDeqsg1vMTeA/WTC1Wheel.jpg?dc=4675487520409325409[/img][img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwAFA4QfqiKn8xR3XlUWckw1QGv!QQTSogtzj494un*Dwqlq5UrYIIEnWGk9xy3QH9QM3HbLojlk*s23uXVPEVNrcsvW*qhmWWQNvCb1nx7fRvQCrVVSRJRv0gYgxfPknKoqo9TFhaw/engine.jpg?dc=4675487520523837191[/img]
to the passing engine, which was extremely fragile, or landing gear! So, the opposite of the above FEMA claim is true that the debris, which passed through the towers [almost intact and not changing their initial trajectories], certainly did not cause any structural damage to the towers. So, their free fall can be used to determine their speed of passing through the cores after the initial airplane impacts on the exterior walls. And that is a critical conclusion FEMA avoided at all cost.
Third – damage to core columns, if any, could have been causes by debris, which did not pass through the towers – unlike in the above FEMA statement.
Fourth – once the speed of debris passing through the cores is known, it is possible to model the exact extend of damage [to core columns] with a high degree of certainty opposite to the FEMA insinuation underlined just above. If the speed was low, because of the enormous strength of the exterior walls absorbing a vast majority of the initial impact energy, it is possible to exclude any significant damage at all, and opposite to FEMA Study. The passing debris issue is critical!
It is obvious that the airplanes entering the towers were constantly loosing speed. The floor plan above shows the positions of both airplanes fully filling the damage holes in the exterior walls between the intact exterior columns on both sides of the damage areas shown above and on Figures 2-27 and 2-16 of FEMA Study. At these positions the airplanes lost so much of their initial speeds that their movement was too slow to cause any further damage to the hard steel exterior columns by their soft aluminum bodies, and the intact exterior columns on both sides of the damage areas started to cut out the airplane wing ends exceeding the damage areas perimeters.
Knowing parameters of the exterior columns and whole towers, wings and Boeing airplanes (they were designed and tested in the computer), it is easily and cheaply to simulate the impacts in the computer, and to get these speeds, but FEMA failed to do so. Why? There were successful Flight 800 or shuttle Columbia crash recreation efforts.
Instead, FEMA Study (p. 2-22) provides, e.g. a useless number of gigawatts of energy were released by both fires, or misleadingly speculates about temperature allegedly reaching 1,400 °C melting point of steel (p. A-12, 17) implying such a possibility. FEMA Study provides references to the very outdated office fire experiments in 1972 (p. A-3), but DOES NOT conduct any computer simulation of the actual WTC fires, like – though maybe not perfect - the MSC Marc simulation (http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/wtc-microsoft.htm).
The MSC Marc simulation is useful allowing to conclude that “It is clear that the fires could not/did not get much above 825°C (and were almost certainly cooler)” and also to ask “what caused the fire sprinkler system to fail within a few minutes of the impact”, though the included there Boeing 747 collision simulation is out of touch with a WTC reality, because the 767s were less than a half weight of a 747, and the WTC tower structure nor the 767s’ speed were not reflected.
Coming back to the floor plan above showing the airplane positions inside the towers, at which they were too slow to inflict any structural damage to both - the exterior columns and stronger inner core columns, the question remains, if airplane debris reaching these positions could have damaged the inner core columns within the front of both airplanes shown on the plan above.
There are four (4) inner core columns within the front of both airplanes. Because both airplanes shattered on impact and the front section of the WTC 1 airplane could not survive to reach the inner pair of columns of the inner core, so further considerations are limited only to the outer pair of columns of the inner core of WTC 1. Because of a greater load and strength of columns at the zone of airplane impact in WTC 2 than in WTC 1 (indicated by the smaller area of damage to exterior columns), it is certain that during the impacts the WTC 2 airplane was slowing down more rapidly than the WTC 1 airplane, and its front was damaged more than of WTC 1’s, hence the two (2) furthest inner core box columns within the front of the WTC 2 airplane can be excluded from a damage consideration.
The almost equal distances from the towers of the fallen almost intact airplane parts after completely penetrating the towers prove that the WTC 2 airplane was slowed down on impact more than the WTC 1 airplane. The schematic here (FEMA Study Figure 1-3) shows the areas of landing of the airplane debris after flying over the whole floors and falling down far beyond of the opposite tower sides to the impact sides of the towers.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YwBrHUohu83Axdpi1*d5LfsgoNGPDLnW47q*Da1fxwt9ZfeUADJk8duKDJeANylUCvN9EKVxkzPhDBoEPebZUWzbzF2y4*5OJ!8JbplAUuaXzOhENSie9UjebJrkrp5GcVJ8XU5djaipv7jFlJz0*A/trajectory.gif?dc=4675487520854311063[/img]
Landing gears of both airplanes completely penetrated both towers. The WTC 2 landing gear (wheel) fell 1212 ft (370 m) from WTC 2, and the WTC 1 one – 1310 ft (399 m) from WTC 1. The WTC 2 zone of impact was 994 ft (303 m) above the ground, and the WTC 1 zone – 1178 ft (359 m). There is a simple formula – on approx. seventh grade level - to calculate speed of projectile at constant downward acceleration (www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/123/lab/M04-Projectile_rev.doc) - in our case – of 32 ft/s2 (9.8 m/s2) caused by the gravity force, if disregarding air resistance on falling body that shortens distance of falling: velocity=(distance of projectile fall)*{[(constant downward acceleration)/[(height of fall)*2]}^1/2.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YwAQAzQhV8YPbAk8Ma2GXi9ajG3MfAxGt8JGz6aMqnuRktafKHWl8KS8eIHMsb2VSGrUBhpHJdtkQgnBgxgfjFlueR7CwfLmOmfb3dU2I*RgwSeefL0AcyyJfvbfQfr61Uuyi2!XN4Io9AEFEpL5cA/projectile.gif?dc=4675487520935963164[/img]
That simple formula (without considering air resistance) allowed calculating the speeds of the landing gears exiting WTC 2 and WTC 1 at 105.3 and 104.3 mph respectively. The actual speeds were higher, but also almost identical, because of similar air resistance. Air resistance (drag) is a product of air density (1.225 kg/m^3), silhouette area A of body (its area as seen from the front), dimensionless constant C called the drag coefficient (that depends on the shape of body), and squared velocity of body divided by doubled mass of body. (Projectile motion with air resistance description can 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.)
Calculating speeds of the landing gears exiting WTC 2 and WTC 1 with air resistance, two cases were considered. First: gear mass m=150 kg, wheel height of 1.2 m, wheel width of 0.4 m, so area A=0.48 m^2, drag coefficient C=0.5. Second: m=200kg, A=0.6 m^2, C=1.0. In the first case (m=150kg, A=0.48 m^2, C=0.5) the EXIT floor speeds of the landing gears from WTC 2 and WTC 1 were 122.4 and 123 mph respectively, and the preceding ENTRY floor higher speeds - needed to travel through the whole 210 ft (64 m) span of each tower floor after the impact (from initial impact exterior wall to exit window), and leaving at the previously calculated EXIT speeds - were 130.2 and 130.9 mph respectively. In the second, conservative case (m=200 kg, A=0.6 m^2, C=1.0) the EXIT from WTC 2 and WTC 1 speeds were 139.8 and 143.2 mph, and the floor ENTRY floor speeds were 156.6 and 160.4 mph, respectively.
[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQAQA08gtm6jUm5qSjderPAQWFA4OOn41ahl9ek5HZbRvAiEys2lPYh9JNF019UDTxDLa7ppKQFuZk4*vRINEADnkkq1Ciyn2i3xTZKo1cAL64BSZMSG*NhEVSYJGecPqtbgI6Z!osvywoAcF!0p*Q/fireball.jpg?dc=4675487521048857175[/img]
Recordings and a simulation (http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation2.ram) show that after the initial airplane impact the resulting fireball expanded through the tower - like a very strong hurricane (much over 100 mph) - ripping off panels of elevation falling down beneath flames, so also leveling everything inside, but columns, and leaving no obstacles slowing down the landing gears and engine traveling through the towers within that fireball hurricane.
Even, if adding a bounce or two from the floor inside the towers not much changing trajectory, but increasing the landing gears speed from the calculated 160 mph without bounces to around 200 mph with bounces, the plans still lost more than 50 % of their initial speeds on the initial impacts with exterior columns, so more than 75% of their destructive (kinetic) energy (proportional to velocity squared v^2 and mass m, so when velocity drops by 1/2, energy drops by ¾ to 1/4, because [1/2]^2=1/4), so the airplane destructive power to damage inner core columns decreased at least four (4!) times after the initial impacts, FEMA Study ignores and MISREPRESENTS on p. 2-16 claiming that “The exact extent of this damage will likely never be known with certainty” manipulatively implying that some damage had to occur and nothing can be done, because its exact extend cannot be known with certainty, and that is necessary to solve the mechanism of the collapse, and anything else is not good enough, and so it is appropriate not even attempt to assess the damage, nor to conduct a structural analysis based on probabilities, nor to consider more than one possibility, nor to consider that no significant damage to the columns could have happened at all at 200 mph most likely, i.e. that it is fine to refrain from further considerations, and it is the only way to proceed, because there is “no smoking gun”.
The “no smoking gun” theory excusing from an effort, if problems were difficult, does not apply to positions including a full responsibility for dealing with the problems especially, if someone else could have sat down for a half of year and solve them. The use of the “no smoking gun” excuse and not even attempting solving problems by those, who are responsible, proves their incompetence or worse. Before using it, look in your job description and think twice before claiming the “no smoking gun” excuse! A “smoking gun” is not served on a silver platter. It grows and becomes more visible while you work intelligently to solve a problem, and elements without an apparent meaning or connection start to build a whole picture, and a smoking gun emerges becoming more visible step by step.
The exterior columns slowed down the WTC 2 airplane impacting at 590 mph more than the exterior columns slowed the WTC 1 airplane impacting at 470mph with only 63 % of the kinetic energy of the WTC 2 airplane, to almost identical landing gear exit speeds. Additionally, the debris passing entirely through WTC 2 did not go through the inner core unlike in WTC 1, but near the core, so on the debris path were no columns to bounce from slowing WTC2 debris down unlike in WTC 1. It means that the landing gear passing entirely through WTC 1 did not bounced as well, because, if it had retaining on exit the same speed as the WTC 2 debris without bouncing, the speed of debris in WTC 1 would have been actually greater than in WTC 2 rendering the FEMA conclusion just plain insane. The fact that the exit speeds were almost identical clearly indicates that the WTC 2 exterior columns were much stronger and resistant to damage than the columns of WTC 1, as they supposed to be, because of their greater load. By the same principal, the WTC 2 zone of impact inner core columns were much stronger than of WTC 1. So, after passing the exterior columns with similar speeds in both towers, the airplane debris could not damage the much stronger inner columns of WTC 2 more than those of WTC1 with 100% certainty and contrary to the FEMA conclusion!
The fall of the WTC 2 airplane engine not much farther from the landing gear fall indicates that the landing gear was not slowed down much inside the tower, because the gear behind the engine in the airplane impacted a moment latter at a slightly lower speed of the slowing down by the impact airplane while the slimmer engine was still rotating. This points to the initial impact, as the separation event that did not distort much the trajectories, but certainly trashed the wings slightly rotating them back, separated the engines pushing their trajectories slightly outward, and also had to free the landing gears leaving not much of the airplane front fuselages as a whole, which had to further slow down plowing through the concrete (which doubled its strength after 30 years) of the floor(s) in order to reach the inner core columns to damage them. So, the exit speeds of the debris passing entirely through the towers are certain indicators that the initial impacts slowed down the airplanes by more than a half of their initial speeds. So, it seems like FEMA purposely neglected to conduct computer simulations of the initial impacts to avoid reaching a right conclusion!
Watching bad airplane accidents at landings, it is apparent that they are very fragile and brake on impact with hard surfaces at landing speeds. So, both airplanes hitting the towers at maximum speeds were disintegrating on initial impact. The superimposed airplane profiles not fitting well the exterior structural damage areas clearly indicate shifts of airplane parts hitting the towers latter (farther back in the airplane) from their initial location within the profiles. These shifts could have been only caused by airplane deformation resulting from the disintegration on the initial impacts. E.g. just after the initial moment of impact the airplane wings started to roll up causing the damage above their initial positions, as indicated above by the damage to the exterior columns above the superimposed airplane profiles, etc.
The airplane disintegration on initial impact is supported by the fall of the WTC 2 airplane engine slightly further than of the same airplane’s landing gear, because the engine - more up front than the landing gear - hit the tower, separated from the airplane earlier, and at a slightly higher airplane’s speed (decreasing on impact) than the landing gear impacting a moment latter at a slightly lower speed. Only a small deviation of the WTC 2 part trajectories from that airplane direction before impact also points to the airplanes disintegration on the initial impacts despite that the WTC 1 airplane landing gear probably slightly bounced from a column deviating from the airplane trajectory before exiting the tower.
Disintegration on the initial impact means that resulting separated airplane pieces lacked significant energy to exert damaging pressure on inner core columns protected by their load and strength much greater than exterior columns of the same floor. The flying pieces (except the hard engine shafts, as Peter Bressington of Ove Arup & Partners, Consulting Engineers explained showing a simulation at 33 min. of Inventions, Building to Extremes show on PBS) did not have energy to structurally damage the inner core columns contrary to the FEMA conclusion. FEMA chose not to conduct cheap computer impact simulations maybe to avoid pointing toward revealing tower design inadequacies reducing reasons to go to war with Iraq, but at the expense of orphans and widows.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
I wonder if a simulation will show what was clearly seen just before each collapse ----- a wave moving down the structure followed by the collapse.
Now it can seem strange that so solid panels could even be dameaged while as you say the fuselage of an airplane is a very fragile thing and seing the remains from other airplane crashes ,you would emagine the intire craft just disintergrate at inpac, but I just wonder why you newer hear about what was so clearly seen just before the collaps ----- if any hanger or fitting was holding the floors they would not restand that moving wave and the reinforcement with concrete of the floors, would make the inner structure even more rigid ,making sure that the hangers would break.
Per Corell
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kassehus14.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Donald,
The PBS special “Why the Towers Fell” seen yesterday says at 21 minute that: “Initial reports describe the fires as super-hot […], but the fire experts on the Study teem found those reports to be wrong”. And then Jonathan Barnett, Prof., Fire Protection Engineering explains that a high temperature was for only a brief moment. Other sources provide approx. 3 minutes as duration of this brief moment. After that the fire temperature was low, and way below 800 deg. C, not only not melting steel (1,400 deg. C), but also below a temperature of loosing by steel of a significant strength. You can rent a copy of the PBS special “Why the Towers Fell” on DVD or VHS from a local library.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1346
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the old-format pages of this forum, a participation described damping connections in the floor joist end connections, which used rubber and may have been vulnerable to heat even at rather low temperatures.
Some illustrations were posted to the forum which explain the concept. I don't know if that information was credible and correct, or not, and if it was, how it might fit into the bigger picture of the progressive collapse.
But I mention it since floor joist end connections have come up again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kevin,
Do you know why the photos did not pop up in my last post just above? Their location seems to be written correct.
Do you know also why this whole page got so wide after the above mentioned post had been published?
Donald,
The definition of ”brief” you are asking followed the word “brief” in the same place it was used just in the next sentence
reading: | Quote: | | “Other sources provide approx. 3 minutes as duration of this brief moment”. |
There is a difference between a sustain fire temperature (please, do not ask to define “sustain”) that effects structure,
and brief spikes in fire temperature that do not. There could have been very flammable copying machines there next
to columns, which burning could have produced high temperature fires here and there making high temperature small
burn marks on the surface of column plates 0.75-1.5 inch thick, which had no effect on the structure whatsoever!
Very high temperatures were in WTC 7, because of burning fuel from 400-ton tank in the WTC 7 basement,
and the insulating properties of basements (a very poor heat exchange unlike in the WTC towers cooled very much by
the strong cool breeze you can see on recordings).
Yes, when structure fails, it twists!
The “laws of physics” are best visible on my article’s pictures to be seen at many pages, but the following one has
comments you may enjoy: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/296788.shtml.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
"A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph. The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall. Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground...."
A wave running down the structure show clearly, how bolts simply have had to break unless the floors suddenly was able to become that much wider guess such force would reach ground before the collapse and making so thick steel walls wave proberly can be seen on a seismograf.
P.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
"AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."
These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. "
Well what do you expect, how much energy was used putting all this steel in the air, shuld that energy just go into nothing --- ofcaurse not all that energy was suddenly relesed as heat energy within the building steel the only energy it could become , that ask no fire or oxygen the heat must have been very high just after the collapse proberly high enough to melt steel at _that_ point , to do that with petrol you need a specialy designed burner and a lot of time heating up the steel so forget about the fire causing the melted steel, that must be the energy in the tons of steel reaching the ground. .
P.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
