Reply #49: Clarifications... [View All]

[Carefulplease]

In fact you've changed your position 180 degrees. In post 2 you wrote:
"The kinetic energy, and thus the structural damage incurred by the structure, was thus at least 6 times larger than expected."

Indeed, that statement of mine was very lousy. I should have said: The kinetic energy was at least 6 times larger than the kinetic energy released (and available) in the sort of impact that the towers were designed to survive. The structural damage was very much greater than expected.

One can not say that some type of damage A is 6 times larger that some other type damage B, for damage does not have a natural numerical unit. It's a qualitative concept. I was lousy.

NIST did not "bump up an high end estimate". They prepared several data sets that covered some reasonable uncertainty range. They discovered that one of these sets produced simulation results that were more empirically adequate even before they ran the simulations that lead to collapse initiation.

Yes, even slightly buckled columns are as good as severed.
http://www3.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

Regarding the engine and landing gear exits, you will find some photographs in both the FEMA and the NIST(main) reports, and also here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim2.pdf