New York Times article on WTC truss study

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document ■

brook, Ill., also working for the insurers, IMPACT SEQUENCE south face of Two WTC. Computer would not comment on their work. . analysis showed that the impact of the In the Silverstein study, engineers put forth similar but not exact failure sce­ 1 si planes also destroyed or disabled some 20 of 47 columns in the center of the narios for both towers; The planes and core of One WTC and some five of 47 ■l

fl)ing debris hobbled the buildings at r columns in the southeast corner of the the zones of impact. Intact columns, core of Two WTC. their fireproofing knocked off by flying The Silverstein findings are based on s debris, ultimately lost strength and failed analysis of original structural drawings, in the fuel-triggered fire. thousands of photos and dozens of Though hit by the second plane later videos. The team used computer mod­ than One WC, Two WTC fell first, “pri­ eling, including a program called FLEX 2 marily” because the plane struck it off- developed by Weidlinger for the Dept center and at an angle and caused dam­ of Defense, and fire evaluation tech­ age that compromised the southeast niques to simulate the condition of each corner of the core. “Tljis confirms an tower at critical times, creating impact earlier theory,” and collapse 3 says Levy. R sequences. At each tower, ri- The Na­ 3 fc— tional Insti­ iSiiii exterior wall and core columns, ; 'I tute of Stan­ connected by a ■' B^SBiSS steel “hat truss" at MB wim SKaS Im Si SEiI dards and Technology, the building’s top, which recently began a two-year technical initially redistributed loads away from the study on the 'World Trade (inter disaster, damaged areas to remaining columns. In is using both team’s studies to perform a t Two WTC, the hat truss eventually could “very systematic" analysis, says S. Shyam not deal with the situation of the corner 4 Sunder, chief of NIST’s materials and columns gone, says Levy. construction research division, Gaithers­ The team determined that the initial burg, Md. “The real question is whether hits destroyed 33 of 59 perimeter there was one dominant failure mecha­ columns in the north face of One ViTC «Ewrc twoWtc nism or a combination,” he adds. □ and 29 of 59 perimeter columns in the HiTS Planes caused different damage. By Nadine M. Post

projects as long as the bond program Transportation Planning holds up,” says Charles Krautler, execu­ tive director pf rilie Atlanta Regional BAHLE R PROPOSED USE OF Commis§orf**rhere are ways to address this,3frfl get the money flowing.” ,>’’^ormer Georgia Attorney General BONDS FOR RGiA CONTINUES Z* Mike Bowers, the attorney for the oppo- nents, says the state’s position that a joint THE SALE OF BONDS BAOKED BY FED] resolution is not a binding contract is highway funds to finance an ambitious SAMPLING OF ARC PROJECTS: “patently” absurd, “What the govern­ state highway progi am in Georgia is on ment is doing is a sham,” he says. Either hold until die Georgia Supreme Court ► Addition of high-! tccupancy vehl- way, the scheme is unconstitutional, he rules on their constitutionality. cte lanes to Interstates says. “If the joint resolution is a contract Opponents of Georgia’s plan to issue ► A new II igfiTiodal passenger sta- then the bonds are invalid because the ri-'ri such bonds, led by a group called the tkmkyM 'ntown Atlanta joint resolution is expressly prohibited Northern Arc Task Force, took their case ■ ►Dtfmmutei^'ran . by [the] Georgia Constitution,” Bowen to the state Supreme Court after a lower between Macon and Alma «?» “ ^e bnef submitted to the high Ja court ruled in September that the plan X.............. ...... ........ ..... ... --------- - court. If, on the other hand, thejoint res- does not riolate the Georgia Constitw* ‘ ► Northwest corridor fixed olution is not a contract, then die trans- K tion. Briefs were filed Oct 27 before^e . way construction of the federal funds from the agency g state high court and oral ai'guinciifc are / to the authority is a gratuity also prohib- g scheduled for January. > "^Ijtcd by the state constitution, he says. g The crux of the dispute io joint res- Grant Anticipation Revenue bonds to Attorney General Thurbert Baker | olution between the C^drgia Dept of help finance projects in the $5.3 billion argufed, that the joint resolution is not a g Transportation anddjeState Road and Atlanta Regional Transportation Infra- contract, not binding and therefore | Tollway Authority. The resolution allows structure Plan, released Oct. 23. It not uncon&tptional. Districtjudge Row- | the DOT, the twpient of federal high- includes highway and transit projects land W. Barnet agreed in the September s way funds, y^arantee the authority’s through 2005. SRTA plan,s to issue $822 ruling. “The queStjpn is whether the | bonds. Th^say opponents, is expressly million, but opponents intervened with road projects that would be built under | forbidebnby a 1972 amendment to the a petition filed Aug. 6 with the state dis- the financing scheme is a"^^blic purpose o Bi sUte^OTStitution. trict court (ENR 9/9 p. 35). from which great benefits a^texpected," s ^»®TA wants to issue Federal Highway "We’ve got the money to fund the Barnes said in his ruling. □ | Bl NOVEMBER 4, 2002/ENR 13

... , _ N YC-WTC_000142979