portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative united states

9.11 investigation

FEMA misled the public about the WTC collapse!

Had WTC been built correctly, it should have burned out and not collapsed, causing smaller material damage and much fewer victims among almost 1000, who died under the zones of impact in and around the both towers. Because the retribution should be proportional to the injury, so exposing design flaws causing the WTC collapse would have weakened the argument for the retribution war in Iraq. Hiding design flaws blame for part of the injury, and keeping all blame on the attackers, implied more retribution, i.e. a stronger argument for the war. FEMA used very sophisticated technical tricks to avoid truth pointing to design flaws and corruption of the WTC capital project.
WTC 1 versus WTC 2
WTC 1 versus WTC 2
Untitled Normal Page

----- Original Message -----
Eugene Tenenbaum
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 argumenttoverify the FEMA Study about the WTC collapse. The Study seems tocontradict laws of physicsat victim relatives? expense maybein supportto the war in Iraq or else youwill be able to find out.

It isjustthebeginning 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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... WTC1+2Col.jpg?dc=4675487510671384236

http://groups.msn.com/ ... 15-30Flr.gif?dc=4675487510799686045

Therefore, thestructural damage to WTC 2 was LESS severe than that to WTC1on 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!

http://groups.msn.com/ ... collapse.gif?dc=4675487510967116596

?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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... WTC1holePh.jpg?dc=4675487511123431135

http://groups.msn.com/ ... WTC1hole1.gif?dc=4675487518034240309

http://groups.msn.com/ ... WTC2hole1.gif?dc=4675487518156626198

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 suggestsa 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 ?- 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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... 85flrCol.jpg?dc=4675487518322263997

The massive boxes can be seen on photographs,

http://groups.msn.com/ ... Constr.jpg?dc=4675487518414701238

and in a WTC tower typical floor plan

http://groups.msn.com/ ... 80flrCore.gif?dc=4675487518524784431

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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... 80flrCore1.gif?dc=4675487518629650035

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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... 80floor.gif?dc=4675487518724027964

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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... 2airplan.gif?dc=4675487518849622352

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 2-18). As this debris passed through the building, it doubtless caused some level of damage to the structureacross 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, certainlycould 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

http://groups.msn.com/ ... WTC1Wheel.jpg?dc=4675487520409325409

http://groups.msn.com/ ... engine.jpg?dc=4675487520523837191

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 justabove. 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, andopposite 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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... trajectory.gif?dc=4675487520854311063

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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... projectile.gif?dc=4675487520935963164

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 impactexterior wallto exit window), and leaving at the previously calculatedEXIT 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 EXITfrom 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.

http://groups.msn.com/ ... fireball.jpg?dc=4675487521048857175

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 ? 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, butat the expense of orphans and widows.

homepage: homepage: http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-1790.html

Restate 06.Sep.2004 16:36


Why don't you cut the technical jargon, graphs and diagrams, and state in 2 plain sentences what you mean? This is too much.

this is a tired hoax. 06.Sep.2004 18:13


The center supports of steel reinforced concrete were much larger than depicted. An obvious obscuration of facts.
Design flaw my ass. The towers came down with high velocity explosives. Look at all the DUST. Look at how they came apart. Gimmi me a break.

The WTC towers lacked typical fire resistance 07.Sep.2004 00:38

Eugene Tenenbaum

The WTC towers lacked typical fire resistance required by Building Code, because The Port Authority of NY & NJ were exempted from Building Code jurisdiction, so they built WTC... just unsafe!
Regardless how strong the structure is, if it is not flexible, it will break heated by regular fire, like WTC towers - though very strong mechanically, but without almost any allowance for heat movements to be caused not necessary by fire from airplanes, but from any accident or arson.

Yup. sure-sure... 07.Sep.2004 05:30

Pity for those who never have had fun with H. E.

This does not explain the pools of molten steel ( thermite) at the lower cavities of the razed structures and the huge clouds of dust that can only be the result of high performance explosives applied against the surfaces of concrete. This is a weak white wash. But some of the graphics were kind of cool, if inaccurate. The rest was pure 'baffle them with Bull Sh*t.' Obviously this individual has never seen or used demolition charges. Or hopes that no one else has.
Thank you.

this posting is obviously posted by 07.Sep.2004 09:48

the gov't trolls

as it's "typical" government "analysis" and bullshit meant to confused, obfusicate, & deflect the
search for TRUTH! Please don't buy into it! It's bogus bullshit!

Bright smoke (dust) gush caused by falling floor 07.Sep.2004 10:41

Eugene Tenenbaum

The visible gush of bright smoke (dust) from all 98th Floor windows of WTC 1, just a moment before its collapse, was caused by the falling down whole floor surrounding the WTC 1 core. That surrounding floor had completely disconnected from its supports and fall down causing the gush, i.e. pushed out bright smoke (dust). That disconnection resulted from a lack of structural flexibility not allowing for heat movements under any fire (not only caused by falling airplanes), and had been caused by design flaws.

Oops, spot the spin. 07.Sep.2004 11:32

Tony Blair's dog

"The WTC towers lacked typical fire resistance required by Building Code, because The Port Authority of NY & NJ were exempted from Building Code jurisdiction, so they built WTC... just unsafe!"

Please, show any information that backs up that idea.

The towers were pulled using the built in explosives every highrise
must have for "safety". Should an emergency happen with a high building
like that it's imperative that they can be taken straight down so they
don't fall on neighboring buildings causing more destruction and harm.

These "emergency" explosives were abused on 9/11 in order to make
sure the Bush administration got the "mass killing" they needed
for their propaganda. And Silverstien also made a bundle since
he just a couple of weeks before had managed to get the towers
insurance to include "terrorist attacks".

Not governmental analysis, but rigorous (strict) one 07.Sep.2004 11:47

Eugene Tenenbaum

Governments do not write, how their agencies mislead the public. This analysis has noting to do with any government, and it has been done privately to help to obtain a compensation for damages not covered yet, and so it is rigorous, because otherwise it would be useless.

There was no governmental conspiracy, but just a common negligence resulted from a common corruption. Governments do not conspire, but they try to gain as much as possible. The purpose of having power is to gain economically also through corruption, wherever and whenever possible. When a corruption resulted in injuries or damages, the government usually tries to hide it. And then, it is necessary to use the US court system to sue the government.

Conspiracy theories are like voodoo, and do not do any good, because they divert attention from real remedies to compensate victims, and to prevent a repetition of wrongdoing.

Try again, Eugene 07.Sep.2004 12:42


"Governments do not conspire"

Puh-leez! Go read a copy of Project Northwoods. Educate yourself on some uncomfortable realities.

There it goes again... 07.Sep.2004 14:05

Eugene Tenenbaum

Governments do not conspire to be attacked (to lose), but...

Port Authority is not required to comply with city safety codes 07.Sep.2004 14:32

Eugene Tenenbaum

... from  http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_05082003.html:

"A Port Authority spokesman, Greg Trevor, said yesterday that [...] The Port Authority has long maintained that it is not legally obligated to comply with the city and state's building codes."

The same was at Dormitory Authority State of NY during my work there. Technically, the procedure of non-compliance was to ask Building Dept to concur to the desired variance from (non-compliance with) Building Code, and if they did not concur, just to ignore the request, and to do whatever was desired. So simple!

If The Port Authority failed with structural fire resistance of the WTC towers, do you expect them to admit that, please?

Conspiracy theories - not very productive 07.Sep.2004 15:31

Eugene Tenenbaum

Though conspiracy theories are entertaining, they are not very productive in changing governments. They cannot be presented in courts of law, considered by legislature, etc. The purpose of article is to arouse a support and efforts for a rigorous explanation for the WTC collapse presentable in courts, legislature, etc.

A prove (rigorous explanation) that the WTC towers would have collapsed because of design flaws - let say at the same time, when conspiracy effects took effect, if a conspiracy had existed - will actually allow to deal with the government in REALITY in courts, the Congress, etc. without dismissing conspiracy theories so needed by some, so let they have them.

So, conspiracy theories, though entertaining, are entirely harmless for the government, unlike the article presented here. Think about that very, very carefully, please, if you did really want to change the government.

conspiracy 07.Sep.2004 18:10


funny you should mention it. The single most used prosecutable indictment used in the legal system. And yet it has no credit when directed at criminal government action. I guess it's a forbidden area. Lots of disinfo on the WTC towers demolition, a sensative subject indeed.

questions for eugene 07.Sep.2004 18:35

from me

why or how did the wtc tower's steel support columns disintegrate?

what caused the steel to melt?

why or how did bldg. 7 collapse?

why or how did these three buildings collapse so efficiently, pancake-style, as if by expert demolition?

when the towers began to collapse, what caused the explosions at that time inside the buildings?

i have lots more, but these will do for now...

ridiculous and unknowledge assertions 07.Sep.2004 20:15

another me

"They cannot be presented in courts of law, considered by legislature, etc. The "

That is utter bullshit. There are laws against corporate consolidation, called anti-trust laws, which are basically built on making illegal untoward conspiracies to close off consumer options or to set prices, which are both conspriacies. These go to court all the time. Even heard one on NPR a few years ago when some bigwigs were meeting in Hawaii to set the price of soy or something for SEVERAL YEARS IN advance, all with the '(faked) natural ups and downs' of prices! It was recorded on tape by undercover gov't agents and they were CAUGHT!

As for the 9-11 conspiracy, it is the conspiracy of the intergenerational CIA family of the Bushes taking over the executive of the U.S.: that is what we are talking about here. Second, what we are talking about is the ADMINISTRATOIN of law instaed of the very existance of anti-conspiracy against the people laws which do exist. The administration of law of course is another thing entirely when you work for a police state...right? Or when your court are totally illegitimate on the national level, as seen in the 2000 selection--which is a made up power the Supreme Court presumed to create for itself--there is nothing about stopping elections or stooping counting because of (crinimal court) proceedings. So, Don't expect any bonuses from them for your activities here attempting to unconvince us of their criminality, or yours. They will chew you up and spit you out.

hey! "Eugene" 07.Sep.2004 21:48



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....Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute. "The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001. One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2.


Print the pic out and stick it up you ass.


Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.

Exclusive to American Free Press

By Christopher Bollyn

American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.

These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

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.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions,* told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be "a smoky smoldering pile."

Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.

This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.

The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.

Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.

Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.

This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.

The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were four inches thick.

Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."

"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"

Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, "That's the $64,000 question."

Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."


Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that—as the collapses began—a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

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.

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground.

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Last November, Lerner-Lam said: "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage—but not causing significant ground shaking."

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source?

While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.

Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel.

"I am not a metallurgist," Corley said.

Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East.

Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.

Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports.

Ratner came to Metal Management after spending years with a metal trading firm known as SimsMetal based out of Sydney, Australia.

* Painful Questions (Item# 1051, $20, 160 pages, softcover) Is available from First Amendment Books, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003. Call 1-888-699-6397 to order by Visa or MasterCard.


The WTC 7 collapse 07.Sep.2004 23:23

Eugene Tenenbaum

WTC 7 collapsed fried by the burning fuel from 400-ton tank located in its basement. The fire there reached very high temperature, because there was no exchange of heat, like in the WTC towers through the flow of cool air very high above ground. The tank caught fire through the basement fire from fallen WTC 1 debris, but main question remains why the tank caught the fire. It should have been well protected, but apparently it was not. The fires in the WTC towers were very different, i.e. they were quite cold.

Nobody sane would locate an ill-protected fuel tank in the basement of a building unless it is building nobody caries for, e.g. one by government. The Port Authority of NY & NJ should have been striped of the right to issue building permits, i.e. of its exemption from building code jurisdiction, allowing for corruption and stupidity.

Executive Privilege insulates the Government 07.Sep.2004 23:54

Eugene Tenenbaum

The government can claim Executive Privilege insulating from lawsuits except criminal ones. Richard Nixon was caught, when the Supreme Court refused him the privilege voting 9:0, because it was the very common criminal investigation of the braking-in to the Watergate Hotel in Washington DC.

Finding a way to link the Government with 9/11 in a criminal case would be worth at least a Nobel Prize, and minimum $1000/hr salary. In other words, it is highly unlikely! Clinton was caught, because he had been stupid, did not want to have one day of a bad press claiming the privilege, lied on tape, and - of course - paid the price, because the Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr caught him.

In most cases, the governmental conspiracy is called just politics. So there is no way to do anything, unless there is a court case for, e.g. negligence causing casualties, like faulty design of the WTC towers.

The WTC tower collapse 08.Sep.2004 00:15

Eugene Tenenbaum

The both WTC towers collapsed in a low temperature fire, and so there did not take place melting steal, or even a lost of a significant strength of steel at let's say 800 deg. C. The structure of the both WTC towers was ill designed without almost any resistance the to the tension between structural members at elevated temperature, let say 300 deg. C (572 deg. F), i.e. quite low.

After 1 hr and 43 min. of fire, the 99th Floor structure surrounding the inner core in WTC 1 simply separated from the connections, fell down on the 98th Floor causing the visible horizontal gush of bright smoke (dust) through all windows of 98th Floor, columns buckled, and WTC 1 collapsed without tilting. WTC 2 collapsed differently, and also at low temperature, but I cannot and will not say how.

WTC 7 collapse started at the basement level, because the fire there was the hottest, and really very hot from burning 400 tons of fuel in the basement, unlike in the WTC towers.

desperate disinformation 08.Sep.2004 00:29


One forgets, the reason for the collapse of WTC7 has already been explained by its leaseholder:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

- Larry Silverstein

Once that card is pulled, the rest of the house quickly follows.

Hehehe... 08.Sep.2004 01:59

Tony Blair's dog

mr."Eugene Tenenbaum" trips himself over in his effort to spin and cover up
the real crimes of the Bush administration and their henchmen.

"The tank caught fire through the basement fire from fallen WTC 1 debris, but main question remains why the tank caught the fire. It should have been well protected, but apparently it was not. The fires in the WTC towers were very different, i.e. they were quite cold."

Priceless ;-D

To continue with mr."Eugene Tenenbaum's" post above named "Port Authority is not required to comply with city safety codes".

For starters, the title of the comment is quite deceptive to say the least,
since the title implicates that this is a fact.
Now, if we look at the link to the nytimes article(?) by James Glanz,
that mr."Eugene Tenenbaum" provides we learn the following;

"The Port Authority has long maintained that it is not legally obligated to comply with the city and state's building codes, but has always insisted that it nonetheless did so in all its major construction, including the trade center."

Now, read the title again and you will see the obfuscation.

If we continue to read the linked page mr."Tenenbaum" like to reference
we find this "smoking gun" part a couple of lines further down;

""One of those people, Guy Tozzoli, who oversaw all major aspects of the World Trade Center for the Port Authority at the time of its construction, said his memory was imperfect, but that he thought full-scale tests on the floors and their supports most likely had not been done.

"I don't remember that being done, to be honest with you," Mr. Tozzoli said. "I know there was testing of the fireproofing material. But you are asking a different question. Whether we built a truss and tested that? I'm inclined to say no."

Many yesterday found that startling, even unthinkable.""

Now, who is Guy Tozzoli?

A quick search tells us that Guy Tozzolli is the President
of the World Trade Center Association (WTCA) ;-)

Lets continue with mr."Tenenbaum's" comment.

"If The Port Authority failed with structural fire resistance of the WTC towers, do you expect them to admit that, please?"

This spin is so great it deserves a special note;

Did The Port Authority actually construct the WTC towers?

No. The Port Authority was the client and not the builders.

It seems that mr."Tenenbaum" is trying to make people believe
that Minoru Yamasaki(architect) and Leslie E. Robertson(structural
design and construction) did not do their work.



In his comment "The WTC 7 collapse", mr."Tenenbaum" is again trying to baffle people into believing that The Port Authority IS exempt from building code jurisdiction and actually CAN in some way interfere with standard practice when it comes to actually construct buildings.

He is working really hard to confuse people into believing that the right to
issue building permits has something to do with actually constructing buildings.

"The Port Authority of NY & NJ should have been striped of the right to issue building permits, i.e. of its exemption from building code jurisdiction, allowing for corruption and stupidity."

These blame games only serves to keep people's focus away from the real criminals,
just like how the administration is trying to camoflage their involvement
in the 9/11 hoax.

So who is mr."Eugene Tenenbaum"?

A quick search tell us that there is one "Eugene Tenenbaum" who
is the director of the brittish soccer club Chelsea.

Another "Eugene Tenenbaum" is found spamming almost all IMC sites
with the above post the other day.

And then there is one "Eugene Tenenbaum" who want to
divide Iraq into two(2) smaller countries.

Something tells me that the last two "Tenenbaums" are one and the same.

A coincident that mr."Eugene Tenenbaum" starts spamming the IMC
network after Ruppert exposing Dick Cheney as the main operator
of the 9/11 fake "terrorist attack"?


Interesting... 08.Sep.2004 07:06


...the reasons for the post on this earnest attempt to provide a weak limited hangout if not more of a strawman I can't decide which. But. There is a reason for this renewed salting from spooks with false trails...
Maybe the poll in NYC revealing the nearly 50% of the city believed that the Bush crowd was involved in 9-11 has something to do with it and the coming speech from such patriots as Cynthia McKinney about this crime. WBAI ( pacifica) has been promoting the event big time.
This seems like a typical CIA reaction to crisis.
Like the truth about to explode all over the American public and the wetting of trowsers in high places.

Who is Eugene Tenenbaum? 08.Sep.2004 13:36

Eugene Tenenbaum

I am flattered by so much attention deserved by the subject, and not me personally. Thank you!

I indeed publish this article in almost all IMC, and many comments can be read at  link to fireside.designcommunity.com. But get real with the facts, because they are verifiable:

It is said also at  http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_05082003.html that: "Federal investigators studying the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, say they now believe that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the government agency that built the towers, never performed the fundamental tests needed to determine how their innovative structures would perform in a fire."

"Trade Center complex was exempt from the city fire code. A private owner would lose that exemption, and engineers informed the PA that it would be extremely difficult and costly to make the structural changes necessary to comply with the code." and "The buildings that eventually rise at Ground Zero [... ] really should comply with the city's fire code," is said at  http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_07272002.html, and similarly at  http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_07272002.html, and similarly at  link to www.guerrillanews.com "the Port Authority claims that because it is a bi-state agency it is not required to comply with city safety codes"; "the agency was created to operate and oversee the New York-New Jersey area's water, highway, rail, bridge and tunnel transportation entities. "When they exceed their charter mandate and act as a commercial landlord, they should be held to the same standards as commercial landlords," "; and "most people she has spoken to "are horrified to hear that the Port Authority is immune from (city codes)."".

Weather WTC 7 was pulled down or not is not important, because it was already finished by the high temperature fire melting structural members, but pulling it down seems unlikely, and there is no evidence in support, but if such a theory makes someone happy, let it be, because it is harmless.

My article does not blame the great architect Minoru Yamasaki for anything, but the structural engineer and The Port Authority of NY & NJ for design flaws and corruption. Corruption has many proponents mainly those, who benefit from it. It is understandable, though not acceptable. It is a part of nature to exist on the lowest possible level of energy expenditure, i.e. as economical as possible. Many like to live on expense of others since forever, but it is immoral among decent people.

please 08.Sep.2004 15:33


Sorry to say this, Eugene Tenenbaum.
You're embarrassing yourself. Pitiful. Really.

Embarrassing? 08.Sep.2004 19:36

Eugene Tenenbaum

I had no idea of all these theories until now, because I rarely talk to anyone, leave home, but only program software in AutoLISP (search "Eugene Tenenbaum AutoLISP" through Google to see), which I have abandoned for a while to explain the WTC collapse, because having a degree in architecture I had been unconvinced by the explanations seen on TV.

Before reviling the whole piece - which I still add last 3 dimensional schematics to, to make everything understandable to an average reader - I decided to test interest, acceptance, and - first of all - clarity of my writing (English is my fourth language) and my explanation of the subject by publishing this FEMA Study critique (residing at the beginning of the whole unpublished yet story), and this is why we discuss the subject.

Of all the places only Portland Indymedia responded. Design Community Discussion Forum also responded, but their opinion is not as valuable, as yours to find out, how clear the article is for entirely unknown readers. I read it to my neighbors, but it was not enough. Soon after the first publication, many questions started to pop up, so I have started adding explanations: why I wrote only that much, why FEMA lied, what happened to WTC 7, what are mechanism of corruption in governmental capital projects, etc, etc. I understand that everyone wants to get the whole package, but it is only a test, and nothing more.

It is funny (and maybe flattering) to be suspected of any ties to government, especially to CIA. I have no idea, who Cynthia McKinney is, and doubtfully will ever find out. Nevertheless, it is nice to leave in the federal republic, where all can keep common federal goals, and their state differences, like between NY and OR (your trolleys look nice). It requires tolerance doubtfully found among Iraqis doubtfully ready for federalism, which would be my Plan A having a personal experience as persecuted, and not a CIA operative (still funny!).

Thank you for the participation, and maybe more distance would broaden the perspective!

Oops... 08.Sep.2004 23:49

Tony Blair's dog

"Weather WTC 7 was pulled down or not is not important, because it was already finished by the high temperature fire melting structural members, but pulling it down seems unlikely, and there is no evidence in support, but if such a theory makes someone happy, let it be, because it is harmless."

Again mr."Eugene Tenenbaum" calls the fact that even
Silverstein himself(knowingly or not) said to the reporter
that he ordered WTC7 to be pulled "not important".

Well well... For someone claiming to look for the truth
mr."Eugene Tenenbaum" is surely doing his best to
keep his(/other peoples(?)) blindfolds on.

Did he even check on the under cover CIA office(the biggest
outside of Langly) that was located in the WTC7 building at all?
Is that why he is so determined to shut it out of the discussion?

For someone claiming to be searching for the truth mr."Eugene Tenenbaum"
seems to have bought the Bush administration "failing structure" cover story
hook, line and sinker.

Truth matters but… 09.Sep.2004 15:43

Eugene Tenenbaum

Truth matters but in politics everyone lies. What does matter to catch Bush on fifth, sixth, or seventh lie? If someone lied once, he is a liar, but in politics lies are called tools of the trade, and the proponents of W. Bush accept them as such.

The truth mattered in the tobacco story - regardless of already knowing that smoking causes cancer - only, when it was proven scientifically that smoking damagers genes shown rigorously, and which one, and how without any doubt in court of law. So what does it matter what Silverstein said, if you cannot do anything about it, because he always can say I was in a shock, while saying that?

Summarizing for the first time my article, it says that because the airplane landing gears and engine landed almost intact, and did not change their initial trajectories after penetrating the whole towers, so they cold not have bounced inside the towers, because if they had bounced, they could not have survived almost intact, and their initial trajectories would have been distorted at their speeds.

So, they can be used to relatively simply calculate the speeds of airplanes debris just after the initial impacts including air resistance, i.e. just after passing the external walls. The speeds came up just under 200 mph, and almost identical for the both towers (a few mph more for the WTC 1 airplane). At that speed only airplane engine shaft has ability to damage the internal columns - as Ove Arup & Partners, Consulting Engineers simulated without doubt - but no columns were on the shaft paths.

All of that proves without doubt that the impacting airplanes could not have damaged WTC 2 more than WTC 1, as FEMA has claimed, because the columns in the WTC 2 zone of impact were 2-2 ¼ times stronger than in the WTC 1 zone.

Additionally, the greater resistance of stronger columns in the WTC 2 zone is clearly visible in the 26 % smaller crater in WTC 2 external wall than in WTC 1 - as shown on the pictures in the article, which everyone can see with his own eyes - confirming that weaker WTC 1 zone columns were prone to greater damage, and they actually did opposite to the FEMA conclusion.

Please, explain, hot that supports the Bush administration, or how it provides any coves story for them?

Errata 09.Sep.2004 17:02

Eugene Tenenbaum

Please, explain, HOW that supports the Bush administration, or how it provides any coves story for them?

Correction2 10.Sep.2004 12:59

Eugene Tenenbaum

Please, explain, HOW that (see above) supports the Bush administration, or how it provides any COVER story for them?

Correction lllV 11.Sep.2004 10:29


Mr. Eugene Tenenbaum, we know by now the meaning of a red herring.
But don't let me stop you from trying. It's kinda cute.

Idiomatic expressions... 11.Sep.2004 12:30

Eugene Tenenbaum

You maybe know by now the meaning of a red herring, but I needed to search the Internet to find out, what does it mean!

How accusing FEMA (government) of misleading about the WTC collapse diverts attention or distracts to focus on an irrelevant issue, when it is on the same issue, and it is rigorous and verifiable (you can actually check it out), and it actually does not contradict any conspiracy theory, but only the governmental version enforcing any theory other than provided by FEMA (government), so also a conspiracy theory?

Though I do not believe in a conspiracy theory, but it also gets a boost from what I wrote, because my article says do not trust FEMA Study (so also the government FEMA belongs to), because it mislead about the WTC collapse you can actually see for and verify yourself! So my article actually paves the way also for a conspiracy theory too, but you do not like it, though it is rigorous and verifiable, meaning, that you do not distrust my article (how anyone can distrust 2+2=4), but you actually distrust me.

Since you do not know me, your distrust has to do with my name and the place I live in, and that is just plain prejudice. Can you discuss your prejudice? Do you - claiming to be patriots - have enough courage to discuss your "patriotic" prejudice, please? Is it still cute?

THE NIST 13.Sep.2004 21:10


THe whole FEMA report is a joke, the NIST report anyone? WTC 7 report at their site is detailed! Plenty of pictures of torn up front side of tower, I'm e-mailing the investigators but they don't believe me about silversteins video...

NIST reports are cool, but... 16.Sep.2004 00:04

Eugene Tenenbaum

It was nice mentioning the NIST report "Project 6 - WTC 7 Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis" available at  link to wtc.nist.gov. It explained nicely, what is a mechanics of the collapse that was visible (how happens that, what can be seen on recordings), but does not say a word, what happened in the time between WTC 7 got hit by debris from falling WTC 1 at 10:29 until the first unspecified fire reports at 11:30, i.e. an initial progression of fires, and nothing also showing a connection between the fires and the collapse, so still not much, but more that by FEMA, which was not difficult to achieve, and cannot be congratulated, considering that, what FEMA did was a joke, but - hey - a little progress has to noticed: - "Good" job NIST; twenty more years, and we will know, what really happened in WTC 7... maybe.

WTC 7 collapse 16.Sep.2004 14:59

Eugene Tenenbaum

 http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/7wtc/default.htm provides:

"Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
"The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building."

 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC/7WTC.html provides:

"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."

once again, for the slow minds 16.Sep.2004 15:20


One forgets, the reason for the collapse of WTC7 has already been explained by its leaseholder:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

- Larry Silverstein

Once that card is pulled, the rest of the house quickly follows.

and... once again, for the slow minds 16.Sep.2004 15:54

Eugene Tenenbaum

... the issue is not how it collapsed technically, i.e. what failed first, second, third (or, if Silverstein pulled the card, if believing it makes you happy), because what difference does it make, only, what lead to the WTC 7 collapse, i.e. what got hit, where fires started, how they progressed, so the whole picture of events leading to its collapse from the first moment debris fell from WTC 1 at 10:29 until it started collapsing. What difference does it make, weather the collapse progressed this or that way? It is just a technicality!

Conspiracy theories are a cover-up also for the Administration! 20.Sep.2004 12:33

Eugene Tenenbaum

Any conspiracy theory diverts attention - like a red herring - from the actual facts including neglect of duty also to defend our country by labeling the 9/11 events as too sophisticated and mysterious, so impossible to uncover. FEMA Study claims that the WTC collapse was too mysterious, so impossible to solve, end of story. So, conspiracy theories seem clearly to be the Administration's tool of operations.

Spreading any conspiracy theories actually helps the Administration to sell the notion that it cannot be blamed for the 9/11, because the 9/11 conspiracy was unsolvable. The same is with the WTC collapse (including WTC 7) under conspiracy. If under a conspiracy, so no more questions, everything ends, no faulty design or anything else, because of the big and final word: CONSPIRACY!

So no questions, e.g. why the sprinkler system in WTC 7 did not extinguish the fires started at 10:29, since the system was definitely there, and not destroyed like the WTC tower by the impacts (at WTC 7 were no impacts!), were sprinklers at all in the Kink on the roof starting the collapse, and if not, why, etc, etc.

In a marvelous political manipulation, conspiracies (as allegedly anti-administration) are somehow sold to and spread by opponents of the Administration, but actually supporting the Administration by exonerating them, even, if the conspirators were among them (every apple tree has a few bad apples), so in general the Administration has been good, and not lazy, not incompetent, not corrupted, not selfish, not valuing self-interest above the country's interest, and therefore not literarily unpatriotic.

The conspiracy theories are unpatriotic in another way too. If there was incompetence, wrongdoing, tardiness, laziness, corruption, selfishness, valuing self-interest above the country's interest, so conspiracy theories cover them up, allow for their continuation, and disallow for a very necessary improvement actually exposing our country to further attacks. And that is very UNPATRIOTIC!

...and more discussion elsewhere... 30.Sep.2004 14:34

Eugene Tenenbaum

"Study Suggests [Incorrectly] Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers" 22.Oct.2004 17:21

Eugene Tenenbaum

The New York Times 10/20/04 article "Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers" at  http://www.nytimes.com/ads/carrotink/CarrotInkApril28.html should be actually read "Study Suggests [Incorrectly] Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers", because of its following quotes:

The findings by the institute, however, still do not exonerate Mr. Robertson or the building's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which, [...] boasted that the design was so robust that the towers could be hit by a jet traveling at 600 miles per hour without collapsing or endangering the lives of occupants beyond the impact zone. In retrospect, such a claim was unjustified because the engineers had failed to consider the added stresses caused by the resulting fires.

The tentative conclusions by the federal investigators conflict with an earlier report by a team of structural engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who had asserted that the collapse of the north tower started in the core, not in the outer columns.

But James G. Quintiere, a professor of fire protection engineering at University of Maryland, said he questioned the tentative conclusions, as his analysis showed that in the fires created by the impact, the lightweight floors rose to a temperature high enough to make them separate from the exterior columns. "They have not presented enough evidence," he said.

NY Times: "Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers" 22.Oct.2004 17:30

Eugene Tenenbaum