|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:17 pm Post subject: FEMA contradicts laws of physics in the WTC collapse Study! |
    |
|
----- 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.
/schematics/
Therefore, the structural damage to WTC 2 was LESS severe than that to WTC 1 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!
/schematic/
“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.
/schematics/
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 a greater chance of only two (that one over 50%) described as possible. To describe that way (as possible) a smaller chance qualifies as MISREPRESENTATION, e.g. if a chance of a less severe structural damage to WTC 2 was 99 %, so the more severe damage to WTC 2 was still possible (with probability of just 1 %), so technically FEMA Study’s report was true, but with the reasonable doubts of 99.999999999999%!
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 from 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.
/photo/
The massive boxes can be seen on photographs,
/photo/
and in a WTC tower typical floor plan
/schematic/
(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.
/schematic/
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.
/schematic/
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.
/schematic/
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
/photos/
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 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.
/schematic/
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.
/schematic/
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.
/photo/
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 |
|
 |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1152
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting, Eugene - but a suggestion for you.
Don't worry about the conclusions initially (e.g. whether or not there was faulty design).
What matters is what happened at the crime-scene, and if what we all saw (as we saw it) could have caused the effects that we have seen as being the result.
In other words, could those two aircraft have caused the collapse.
If the answer is "yes", then so be it.
If the answer is "no", then the question that matters is what else was there that did - or could have - caused and/or contributed to the collapse.
You need to know because we all need to know.
"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."
- Joseph Heller, Catch 22
_________________
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: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
…exactly, and the issue is, whether a faulty design existed, contributed to the collapse, and to what degree, because, if it did significantly, thousands of people are entitled to a compensation, and the public is entitled to know, why FEMA (the government) suppressed the discovery of it (at the expense of these people), for what purpose, and weather that suppression served also as a cover up for capital project corruption at Port Authority of NY & NJ, and whether such corruption continues to the present day.
In other words, if the WTC tower design had been faulty, how it contributed to the collapse? The faulty FEMA Study conclusion and other evidence from the Study indicate that the WTC tower design was faulty, and it contributed significantly to the WTC collapse, but the question remains how.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1152
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point that I am trying to make is that the problem has to be taken in sequence.
1. Could the two planes have caused the collapse ?
2. If not, what other factors could have contributed to or caused the collapse ?
I cannot say whether or not there was a design fault, but even if there was, does that mean that that was the only factor - other than the planes - that contributed to the collapse.
It was also an extremely (forgive the word) 'successful' attack. If those towers had simply been burning, the effect would not have been so strong. Were the attackers lucky (lucky ?) in their attack having so dramatic an effect - or was it intended ? If it was, then they would have had to have been well aware of a design fault or, as I say, other factors which helped to ensure the collapse.
If one accepts that the attackers intended the towers to collapse and that the planes alone would have been unlikely to have done it, then all other possible factors have to be considered and, grim though it is, there may be many.
Conversely, if it proved that, say, the planes + a design fault were the essential factors, would bin Laden's construction knowledge have been sufficient for him to be aware of that ?
It opens some nasty questions - and the answers could prove to be even worse.
As you know, you won't get much public thanks for what you are trying to achieve, but I'll bet that there is a lot of private gratitude out there.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1138
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for working toward clarity, Richard.
Frankly, I think that the two planes, plus design flaws, are a fully sufficient explanation for the collapse of the buildings.
(As to intentions - though they are not likely to be inferred from structural analysis - I'd guess that the terrorists got a bigger result than they expected. Crashing multiple airplanes into multiple major buildings, killing everyone on the planes and many in the buildings, as well as grossly damaging the buildings by fire and impact, would have been a huge attack and disaster by itself, without the collapse of the buildings.)
(If anything, I'd guess the terrorists got too much, all at once, creating such shock and horror that the Bush administration got too free a hand in rapidly advancing key elements of right wing agenda that had previously been stalled. But again, these are non-structural issues!)
Without agreeing with all of the Tenenbaum critque - or with the distracting heat and terms of ridicule included - I don't doubt that the FEMA report is highly politicized, as much or more to protect everyday bureaucratic, commercial, real estate, and insurance interests, as to cover any deeper political conspiracy. Over time, the corner-cutting, blame-shifting, and general market-fundamentalism driven by those more mundane interests, if unrestrained and unexamined, may be just as dangerous, or more so, even though less dramatic.
Given that two planes plus design flaws led to building collapse, I do think it is very important to learn just as much as possible about those specific design flaws, so code can be improved to rule them out in the future.
Last edited by Kevin on Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Richard,
Are you trying to divert the discussion to “channels on Mars”, because you are a Republican or you just like fantasies, please?
Seriously, after failing to put down the WTC towers by bombing them in 1993 at the bottom - the strongest possible place, they next just tried to hit the towers higher, because after choosing airplanes flying above the ground as the weapon, it is easier to hit buildings higher.
Why to speculate, if the terrorists counted on or just hoped for to succeed, and if they had a detailed structural analysis of WTC vulnerabilities (I doubt they had, because vulnerabilities were not obvious at all), when it is not a rocket science to figured it out that slamming a big airplane into a building will cause a substantial damage, so why bother even to obtain WTC plans (available in books)? It seems that Bin Laden would consider any damage to WTC a success, so any considerations about “other factors” then the airplanes and design faults is counterproductive especially, when it is possible to explain the WTC collapse based on just these two factors.
The purpose of the article is not to glamorize Bin Laden (though it would be shameful many to conclude that an idiot successfully attacked the strongest country in the world, and successfully collapsed seemingly impregnable buildings by a pure luck and without a much consideration), but to bring truth and justice. Any bitter truth is needed to achieve a real national security, because a false representation of enemies or vulnerabilities does not lead to security, but rather to excessive, unnecessary or false spending (in support of the establishment) that – as the history teaches – led often to political system collapse, e.g. communism, Roman Empire, etc.
Richard, please accept the sad reality that just an effect of burning collapsed the WTC towers, and not without a reason. Have you ever seen a tall building with a floor support by trusses like in the WTC towers? The WTC towers seemed to be the only ones. It is not an accident that such a “warehouse” type of structure has not been used in tall buildings. There is a contradiction between its delicacy and sturdiness needed against wind pressure (without going into details). So, the WTC structural designers “improved” it… with the well known disastrous result. Funny is that FEMA did not miss that only very skillfully diverted attention from it, e.g. using silly schematics, calling the Study preliminary, using the very hypothetical mode for truth and speculative mode against it, hedging itself against being accused of incompetence. FEMA used very sophisticated tricks.
I apologize for “the distracting heat and terms of ridicule included” in the article, but it was not intended for the Design Community, but 9/11 Commission (lawyers, and not engineers nor architects).
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eugene,
I do not think that Richard likes fantasies nor do I think his political affiliation is relevant to his remarks. I think he was only trying to offer a suggestion in the structure of your obviously well researched article.
I agree with him that perhaps the point is lost. Did the WTC collapse occur soley due to two planes or was there other factors. Reading your article, one is not sure what side you are arguing. Did the WTC have design flaws? Were they gross negligence, or a product of the natural evolution of building? Did they factor into the collapse? If so, would a reasonable equivalent of a building be able to withstand the same punishment and still stand thus saving lives? These questions seem cloudy if not completely absent.
I tend to stick to a simple Aristotilian essay format; main thesis- evidence, minor thesis-evidence and so on. Try to leave emotional comments out, because they shed doubt on the exceptional research your article is built on.
This is all given in good faith. Just suggestions, nothing more.
Keep up the good work!
Regards,
dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dgt,
In XXI century already, please, try to speculate constructively using structural mechanics and math. Please, do not kill this discussion introducing “other factors” than the two airplanes and WTC tower structure even, if you do not know, how the WTC towers collapsed, unless you have evidence you present rigorously. Please, only facts, facts, and facts, so we can get somewhere. Any “other factors” are not argued even, if any design flaws are not even suggested, but it does not mean that they did not exist. It is like a suspense movie; you will get the solution, but only at the end, and the article is just the beginning.
If you want to see this article in full with schematics and pictures, do pressure the Architectural Week to publish it, because I have emailed it to them with the graphics. It should be more interesting to see all.
I argue that FEMA spent $$$ millions, and delivered very obvious crap (nobody opposed) using very complex tricks not to reveal truth, but to hide it, and all of that, when there is the capacity to plow through several states to collect tiny pieces of the Columbia shuttle and to explain its catastrophe. At WTC everything was in one place, we are rational, intelligent, and have sophisticated structural/mechanical software and many professors at universities, so why a decent structural analysis and simulation had been avoided?
I show how much more, than the FEMA Study delivered, it had been possible to deduce from just FEMA’s data using just common sense and a little bit of knowledge and intelligence, and so there had to be a governmental interest not to do even basic considerations on grade school levels. It does not mean that there was any other factor than the two airplanes and design flaws, nor this very serious article is an invitation to irrational speculations, but on the contrary. It is an invitation to analyze the WTC collapse rationally to explain it, because is feasible.
This is my point, but not to deliver an explanation of the WTC collapse that belongs to FEMA, which exists at our expense - like CIA and the rest of the Administration - and FEMA does not us any favor doing its obligation, which failed so miserably and purposely [sic!] in this case I expose. This is my point!
What Richard did has been the introduction of unfounded and irrational element distracting (derailing) the discussion to a pointless and counterproductive direction of the endless unknown entirely degrading the seriousness (and therefore importance) of this affair, which - I afraid – has been exposed for the first time here, and pertains the essential topic Richard’s remarks can virtually kill (consciously or subconsciously) forcing me to oppose vigorously by joking, but making sure that they are neutralized for good.
Of course, whether Richard likes fantasies or what is his political affiliation is irrelevant to the subject! But subject itself is very important, and the Richard’s remarks are dangerous for it causing my drastic (maybe too drastic) reaction I apologize for.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1152
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
would the buildings have collapsed - or posed any risk at all - if they had not been targetted in a very carefully planned attack ?
that doesn't matter to you.
you have your own agenda - to blame the architect.
_________________
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 |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
What I find the most important is not to blame the genious architect or blame anything as such, but to learn and if new knowleage question a building method ,then somthing better is there. But to question the architect or hold responsible is out of question, ---- we want to rebuild then first of all, there is somthing worth rebuilding.
Now just to order the concept that will build what ever will never bring the towers as they were, my aproach to restand as imprint in a future building mass ,is only any good, if the actural meaning in the name of the center it once was, my suggestion is non of political but only a response to the demands of Digital taking more over. To develob just a building method different than those used since 17\century . Instead of drawing a vision I show ,maby a bit naive ,what wonderfull features this material seem to carry, anyway it offer a tool and then I am just a designer who must show these things. Dare who don't respect the architect but what must stand must carry a promise ------- a simple promis to build four times as strong, maby look closer to why there shuldn't be a heaven ; this is possible but not by not building . You can not throw down somthing that is not there, making it so produce very beautifull things , rebuilding will impress ,show an answer , and that I rather se some other design is no secret --- but that is becaurse I belive the method is as important than the design , and we need progress somwhere to achive the options to make the houses.
I only blame myself that the pictures didn't do it , guess becoming a Picasso a master that just produce whatever you want ,well in 3D-HoneyComb it work great, then who ask intire blueprints for a castle bad luck being an artist, esp. a bad one  )
Next step will be to produce maby 3 different honeycomb pattern each scale, then to slice the assemblies in a number making it an attractive cost ,well this I mean ; I placed the design in a Yahoo Foto's folder maby only Yahoo members can share :
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/baadsmandsstraede/album?.dir=d655&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos
P.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tenenbaum
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 175
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Richard,
…to blame not the architect (I admire Minoru Yamasaki’s exquisite achievements incl. the WTC architectural design), but the structural engineer, and – first of all - the Port Authority of NY & NJ (or “PA”) for issuing the construction permit accepting the flawed design in principal (bad concept of the lacking imagination structural engineer) and in detail. PA was in the conflict of interest between the gubernatorial (“Emperor” Rockefeller’s) pressure to start the late project, and its obligation to reject a flawed project submission, because of the safety concerns, but to be blamed for a further delay. Unfortunately, the first won.
Rejecting of the ill-conceived application of trusses in the tall buildings would have resulted in a lack of any structural concept at all, and a very serious delay exposing also the shortcomings of the arbitrary (read corrupted) designer selection process by PA possible to be observed to this day in the selection process of architect for rebuilding WTC under the “Emperor” Pataki pressure for the reason of at least his personal glory… but also helping Silverstein Properties, which gained a lot on the WTC collapse.
Not rejecting of submission, because of detail flaws, of the project already so much behind the schedule, and over the budget indicates that PA did not care about anything else than its own interest. Shortly latter they installed the sprinkler system, which – unfortunately - failed miserably on the 9/11. In the meantime, they developed the WTC tower impregnability propaganda that the WTC towers will withstand a B707 airplane collision. It was true from the mechanical point even for B747, because of the mechanically very strong structure against wind pressure that provided such a strength as a side-effect exploded mercilessly, but it was absolutely false from the heat resistance point, i.e. in any extensive fire. Therefore, it was propaganda. Any airplane collision certainly always causes a big fire, because the airplane fuel is not a “holy water”.
You can “entertain” Leslie Robertson’s bragging about the WTC impregnability on the shows like “WTC, Anatomy of the Collapse” (VHS/DVD) or “Innovation, Building to Extremes” (VHS), and echoed on “Why the Towers Fell” (VHS/DVD). Unfortunately, in the first show, Paul Goldberger (from “The New Yorker”) very regretfully supported that bragging in the opinion that the genius of Leslie Robertson allowed for the WTC towers to exist, and everything bad with them can be attributed to Minoru Yamasaki (who already dead could not defended himself). The reality was exactly opposite!
The problem with the arbitrary (read corrupted) designer selection process relies on one trick of corrupting capital projects trade - widely used in government - to select an inexperienced or even plain wrong designer (possible to be observed to this day in the initial selection of architect for rebuilding WTC). The main source of profit with projects has been so called “change orders” for changes after the bid for construction, because changes to project after bid can be overcharged, as not subjected to bid competition, and… out of control. Change orders can result in kickbacks, deferred benefits of a lucrative position after the term of the elected official, etc. Change orders can be generated by bad design by not a good designer or not enough time to do work well even by a good designer.
This brings us to the second trick of corrupting capital projects trade i.e. arbitrary shorting time under a pretext of, e.g. personal glory of achievement by “Emperor” Pataki expressed by, e.g. arbitrary pressure to start (even fake) rebuilding WTC (which actually fixes first of all and nothing else than the Silverstein Properties interest) by laying down the corner stone on July 4 2004, when virtually no plans nor even a complete survey exist. In “WTC, Anatomy of the Collapse”, Guy Tozzoli brags about the shortage of time “potential” (to balloon construction cost “legally”), when $1 M a day loss looms practically allows for almost any excesses, explaining the mechanism and the cost of original WTC gigantic overrun. Such time shortage (to boost construction cost) can be arranged under, e.g. July 4 pretext, or making Freedom Tower 1776 feet tall, or making a sloped or asymmetric roof for “esthetic” (read arbitrary, construction cost boosting) reasons, and completely inconsistent esthetically with the baroque torque of Freedom Tower, etc. But who said that “Emperor” Pataki has a taste in addition to his obvious power?
Anyway, Minoru Yamasaki was great, but others involved were not!
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1152
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
at least we can agree on the dangers of bad procurement.
_________________
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 Aug 28, 2004 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P.C. from Denmark,
Concrete and truss mechanics has been known for decades way before designing WTC in the 1960’s, and we cannot learn much new about them form the WTC collapse. Nobody reasonable has ever used flimsy trusses in tall buildings anywhere else, and not without a reason. They are not good for tall buildings, though excellent for warehouses. A decent and knowledgeable engineer would not use them especially in Europe, where professional standards are high, but he should rather quit.
Apart for how the WTC collapsed, the main issue is why it collapsed. The corrupted process of capital projects is to be blamed, because it allowed for design flaws, and unraveling the corruption - synonymous with finding the guilty - is necessary and essential to protect against it in the future. Corruption in capital and non-capital projects thrives in USA. The war in Iraq has been a virtual bonanza for corruption like any war in the past, e.g. in Vietnam prolonged up to the bitter end despite obviously loosing position years before.
The lesson we can learn from the WTC collapse is to make public, and therefore available for our scrutiny, all capital project (and non-capital, e.g. military, etc.) submissions, rejecting unsuitable bidders during contract award meeting to the lowest bidder biding below his cost counting on and pushing latter for change orders, linking meeting capital project budgets with bureaucrat salaries, penalize bureaucrats for exceeding budget by 7% (or project budget reserve) with denying any yearly salary increase, by 14% (or twice the reserve) with demoting, by 21% (or triple the reserve) with laying off everyone responsible from assistant managers to directors of agencies including project reviewers, those writing project request, requesting design changes, responsible for verifying project conditions, etc, etc.
Not a lack of structural design knowledge should be remedied, but buying influence for gain, i.e. corruption, which had tragic consequences in the WTC collapse case (to be exploit now for a better), and in other cases just allowed someone to live on expense of everyone else. Power of “Emperor” Pataki, Rockefeller, and not only state governors should be limited in respect to influence capital and non-capital project by making awarding as public process, including awarding designs through open competitions, where “Emperor” Pataki is represented only, as one of many, and does not have an exclusive power to award (anything). Public Authorities should be constantly "under a microscope". Their employees should be penalized for a lack of performance. This should be the lesson.
_________________
Eugene Tenenbaum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1152
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
as I have heard it, much of the US public work in Iraq has been given out without even going to tender.
but then the US audit figure for the amount of money misappropriated in Iraq (by US organisations as I understand it) has topped $8.8 bn.
the Auditor General's investigation of the massively over-spent Scottish Parliament building came to the right conclusion when he said that controls on public spending were not an option, but an obligation.
_________________
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 Aug 29, 2004 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Though, possible corruption of the WTC project may partially explain the reluctance of FEMA to investigate the WTC collapse, reflected by the shortcomings of the FEMA Study, the main issue remains unresolved, i.e. how the WTC collapse unfolded step by step, i.e. what were WTC tower heat vulnerabiliti | |
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
