Morgan Reynolds\
26 Alta Way\
Hot Springs Village, AR 71909\
501-922-4592\
econrn@mindspring.net

**March 8, 2007**

### Request for Correction by NIST for Its Invalid WTC Jetliner Animations and Analyses 

 

The following *Request for Correction* is being e-mailed to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology on March 8, 2007.  It will be
certified mailed on March 9, 2007.  Attorney Jerry Leaphart has informed
me that he will work on additional legal papers as necessary. 

 

March 8, 2007

 

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL RRR\
Chief, Management and Organization Division\
National Institute of Standards and Technology\
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 3220\
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3220\
Email: <info.quality@nist.gov>

 

Re:  Request for Correction per Section 515 of Public Law 106-554

 

### Dear Chief, Management and Organization Division:

 

This matter involves "information" that has been disseminated that
serves a useful purpose by insuring that the completed investigation of
what caused the jetliner-shaped holes in World Trade Center building
numbers 1 and 2 (WTC 1, WTC 2), otherwise known as the twin towers,
complies with data and information quality standards.  For all of the
reasons set forth below in conjunction with specific requests for
correction, such quality standards have been utterly and completely
violated.

 

### Requester\'s Identity:

This request is submitted by Morgan O. Reynolds (requester).  My
address, telephone number and email address are as set forth here:

Morgan O. Reynolds\
26 Alta Way\
Hot Springs Village, AR 71909\
501-922-4592\
<econrn@suddenlink.net>

In addition, Attorney Jerry V. Leaphart represents me in this matter.  I
request that all subsequent replies be sent to both me and to my counsel
whose contact information is set forth below.

 

### Basis for Request:

The requests for correction of information are submitted under Section
515 of Public Law 106-554.\
The particular information disseminated that is the subject of the
request consists in:

 

### Citation for Disseminated Information and Details: 

The information is identified and known as  \"Final Reports of the
Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center
Disaster \" <http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm> dated as
September 2005. (Also identified as Information Item No. II below).

 

The source from which requester obtained the information is the NIST web
site at the following pages:

I.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm>\
II. <http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm>\
III. <http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm>\
IV. <http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1-5.pdf>\
V. <http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1-2.pdf>\
VI. <http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf>\
VII. <http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1-2B_Chaps9-11.pdf>\
VIII. <http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1-6.pdf>

The jetliner animations commissioned by NIST for airplane entry,
penetration and fragmentation into WTC 1 and WTC 2, as well as its
computer simulations and general analysis of jetliners at the WTC,
purport to show and/or demonstrate the following conditions:

1.  Complete, nearly intact penetration of the jetliner image into each
    tower and disappearance from exterior view, nose to tail (length of
    the aircraft) and wingtip to wingtip (width of aircraft).

2.  Nearly complete shredding and destruction of the jetliner image into
    small pieces inside each tower.

3.  Substantial aircraft debris exiting the building via each impact
    hole and the wall opposite each entry hole.

4.  No significant deceleration as each jetliner entered a tower. In
    particular,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  Flight AA 11, according to NIST, hit WTC 1 flying at an estimated
    443 mph yet its tail section disappeared (767 length = 159 feet)
    within 0.25 seconds, implying a minimum average airspeed of 434 mph
    traversing the initial 159 feet within the building, an
    insignificant drop of two percent despite massive resistance from a
    steel/concrete building. A real jetliner would have encountered
    massive steel walls and steel floor pans-trusses-reinforced concrete
    floors immediately, as well as the dense steel core within 60 feet,
    drastically slowing the jetliner.

b)  Flight UA 175 hit WTC 1, according to NIST, was flying through thin
    air at an estimated 542 mph yet its tail section disappeared in 0.20
    seconds, implying a minimum average airspeed of 542 mph traversing
    the initial 159 feet inside the south tower, that is, airspeed did
    not decrease despite resistance by a steel/concrete building. A real
    jetliner would have encountered steel walls and concrete floors
    immediately, as well as the dense steel core within 37 feet and
    slowed drastically

These purported phenomena, as mentioned above and as described by NIST
and its contractors, are not independently verifiable and do not have a
scientifically valid basis for making the assumption that the simulated
conditions could actually have occurred. Equally significant, the
preparation of simulations that depict conditions that violate
scientific principles serves only to mislead and to set the conditions
for false conclusions to be enunciated. That is what has transpired and
that is what must be corrected, all as more fully treated hereunder.

I will briefly demonstrate this request for correction as follows:

First consider item 4 above. A jetliner must decelerate at impact due to
the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.[^1] It
is no different than a human springboard diver going through air and
then decelerating as he pushes against the resistance of water. A
flimsy, high-speed jetliner must decelerate sharply upon impacting a
strong, massive fixed object like a skyscraper unless the jetliner
acquires more energy from somewhere yet video evidence shows no
deceleration of aircraft, no loss of momentum as it penetrates the
tower.

NIST obviously incorporates the untested assumption that two jetliners
could enter the twin towers and fail to decelerate during the first 159
feet of travel, the overall length of the jetliners. This assumption
implies that all or most deceleration by each jetliner would occur
within approximately the last 208'-159' = 49' in each tower, ignoring
off-perpendicular lines of travel within a tower. The endpoints
maintained by NIST are impossible (entry at 443 or 542 mph with average
speed maintained for 159' in each tower, followed by deceleration to
zero for most of each jetliner within the remaining approximately 49').
If kinetic energy and/or momentum did not decrease during the first 159'
of tower penetration (implied by no deceleration), then each jetliner
would have exited its tower, flying right through. It would be like a
.357 magnum bullet fired through paper or 1 mm of balsa wood. As any
such theory about jetliner impact with the twin towers is physically
impossible, it is utterly improper for NIST and the supposedly
sophisticated contractors it retained and paid to have utilized patently
false physics so as to disregard the issue of deceleration as here shown
to have been done.

All videos that "record" penetration by UA 175 into the south tower show
no collision/crash and no deceleration. Instead, the jetliner image is
"absorbed" by the building without deceleration; we just see a jetliner
image glide into the tower and disappear without losing a flap, panel,
wing tip or tail section.

Many of the available depictions of WTC 2 even show apparent "healing"
of the structure as the jetliner penetrates. Some images show, for
example, no break in the wall (no "scar" or column failure) after the
wing section between the engine and fuselage passes into the building.
The same impossible healing is true of the entire impact area.

As the conditions shown in such videos obviously violate several laws of
physics, of momentum and of energy, to such an obvious extent that
professionals like those employed and hired by NIST must be deemed to
know this, it follows that the information thus far disseminated to the
public, and mentioned herein, is false, fraudulent and cannot be allowed
to remain as is.

Videos that depict such impossibilities must be deemed to involve
special effects of some kind for they almost certainly constitute fake
"evidence" that should have been identified as such by a proper review
of that information in the normal process of engaging in scientific "due
diligence" that must be and is a prerequisite for issuance of reports
that comport with the requirements of "data and information quality."

The assumptions concerning the laws of physics that are incorporated
into the videos, as seen, are simply based upon impossible physics,
rather like a "Road Runner" or "Tom & Jerry" cartoon. The analogy is
both exact and obvious and should have been spotted. In addition,
features like noiseless penetration of the towers despite noisy jet
engines and other sounds on audio portions (screaming, etc.) prove
fakery.

NIST violates quality standards by relying on fraudulent evidence and
positing phenomena that violate elementary physics. NIST apparently
failed to interview and document the photographers of each video, chains
of custody (e.g., the Evan Fairbanks video allegedly was in the hands of
the FBI on 9/11 for several hours and only a portion of the video was
returned) and failed to investigate to insure no manipulation of pixels.
For unknown reasons, NIST relied on obviously fraudulent data (e.g.,
faked videos) for its "analysis." If NIST engaged in conscious fraud, as
is likely, the British would call it "fixing the intelligence to fit the
policy."

Next, consider items 1-2 above. An aluminum jetliner cannot be
invincible in one instant and fragile in the next instant, despite the
proposed "creative" physics of NIST. Physics rejects any theory that
posits an invincible jetliner (a jetliner remaining intact after an
abrupt collision with a massive steel/concrete skyscraper) but also
disintegrates (flimsy) in the next instant in the same general physical
environment (temperature, etc.). An aluminum jetliner cannot push
through steel walls, steel-reinforced concrete floors, and a steel core
of 47 cross-braced steel columns and disappear yet suddenly turn into
shredded aluminum and other shredded materials. Yet the conditions here
referenced are precisely those that are presupposed in, relied upon
and/or incorporated into NIST findings and simulations referenced in
this request for correction.

Virtually intact penetration is impossible because an aluminum jetliner
is light and fragile and is not built to survive collisions with
hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete. Collisions are a
matter of relative speeds---neither the jetliner nor the building
"knows" which one is moving at 500+ mph and which one is standing still.
Imagine that a WTC tower toppled over and into a Boeing 767 parked on
the ground. What would happen? Despite slow speed of the tower, far
below 500 mph, the "localized" area of the tower would crush the Boeing
and the aircraft, in turn, would inflict little damage on the building.
The difference is the vast discrepancy in mass of the two bodies.

Gashes in the towers, in addition, were too small to completely absorb
the alleged aircraft. A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 156 feet, wider
than the gashes in either tower, about 126 feet at WTC 1 and 106 feet at
WTC 2. Gash heights were short of the 45+ feet necessary to swallow a
767 tail section. To accommodate this problem, NIST relies on a
"shredding" theory. NIST finds that the 767 fuselage (essentially a
hollow aluminum tube), fuel-laden wings and engines caused complete
failure of the steel walls (and floors) while the outer half of the
wings damaged wall columns and belts but these wall sections did not
fail. Allegedly the outer wings "shredded" against a web of steel and
all wing material was carried into the buildings. This is impossible, as
demonstrated here ("A Theoretical Shredding Mechanism" section in
<http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes>).
Steel wall sections that do not fail (fragment completely) would
compress the wing, causing crumpling in the wing. Tearing must occur
some distance from the steel columns and spandrel belts against which
the jetliner metal crumples up. Barring any angular forces arising to
spin pieces around columns and spandrel belts, all steel columns, steel
spandrel belt and floor sections that were hit at the wall but did not
fail must have rejected jetliner pieces and bounced them outside each
tower. We would expect even more debris compared to a fracture mechanism
because shredding would hold back a considerable amount of material in
large crumpled pieces rather than shattered fragments. Yet pictures and
videos show no aircraft debris fell to the ground below the impact
zones. Where is the evidence for the shredded wing halves? It does not
exist. They could not have flown into the buildings after reflection by
steel walls.

Item 3 is false since there was no aircraft debris showering down below
the impact zone. Videos of the "glide-ins" and still pictures below the
gashes support this conclusion. Nor is jetliner debris visible in the
two gashes themselves. Nor has NIST or any other official investigation
agency produced a single time-change part with its unique serial number
from any of the alleged commercial aircraft of 9/11 matched against each
aircraft's maintenance log to prove aircraft identity. Such
identification is standard practice in aviation accidents and disasters.
Further, thousands of pounds of jetliner debris posited by simulations
supposedly located in the WTC plaza are unproven too.

The following quotations from NIST documents support the Request for
Correction:

From V: "The aircraft impact response was dominated by the impact,
penetration, and fragmentation of the airframe structures. The entire
aircraft fully penetrated the tower at approximately 0.25 s.' p. lxxiv.

"The wing structures were completely fragmented by the exterior
wall...The aircraft was severely broken into debris as a result of the
impact with the tower. At the end of the impact analysis, the aircraft
was broke into thousands of debris fragments of various sizes and
masses. Larger fragments still existed for specific components, such as
the engines..." p. lxxvi

IV: \"The speed of American Airlines Flight 11 as it entered the tower
was estimated at 683 ft/s+/- 50 ft/s, or 466 mph +/- 34 mph.\" p. 9

On the same page, Table 2-1: "0.00 seconds Plane enters tower...0.20
seconds Tail disappeared into building." \[Disappearance of a Boeing 767
within one-fifth of a second implies an average airspeed in the building
of 542 mph, so NIST here implies that the alleged Flight 11 flew at 466
mph in thin air and then sped up by 76 mph to 542 mph in the
steel/concrete north tower. This is impossible.\]

V: Exec summary shows impact speeds of 443 +/- 30 mph for AA 11 and 542
+/-24 for UA 175, p. lxxiii.

VI: "A 500 mph engine impact against an exterior wall panel resulted in
a penetration of the exterior wall and failure of impacted exterior
columns. If the engine did not impact a floor slab, the majority of the
engine core would remain intact through the exterior wall penetration,
with a reduction in speed between 10 percent and 20 percent." p. xviii.

\[Comment: A jet engine like a P&W is a dense 5-6 tons made of stainless
steel, titanium and other materials, and allegedly such engines powered
a 767 at 500+ mph into WTC 2 and at approximately 466 (or 443) mph into
WTC 1. An engine would be the least likely item aboard to slow down
since fuselage, wings and tail sections would necessarily encounter
floor slabs while engines need not. The engines presumably were at or
near full power. Under power, the engines would be the last items to
decelerate. A proposed 10-20% deceleration of engines contradicts the
NIST overall conclusion of no-deceleration established above. NIST
"logic" once again fails mandated quality standards\].

VI: The holes shown by NIST are undersized, that is, too small to absorb
a 767 intact. Pp. lxxi-lxxii and lxxviii.

V. "...The aircraft impact on WTC 1...the exterior columns were not
completely failed in the outer wing and vertical stabilizer impact
regions." p. xcxiii.

"Damage to the exterior wall extended to the wing tips, but the exterior
columns were not completely failed in the outer wing and vertical
stabilizer impact regions." xciii

"The analyses indicated that the wing structures were completely
fragmented due to the interaction with the exterior wall, and as a
result, aircraft fuel was dispersed on multiple floors." p. cxi

"The residual kinetic energy in the airframe components at the
termination of the global impact simulation was less than one percent of
the initial kinetic energy at impact." P. 173 (p. 287 of 462).

\[Comment: This statement implies termination within 208' despite little
or no deceleration over the first 159+ feet. So these jetliners
supposedly stopped in less than 50 feet at approximately 443 and 542
mph. Truly amazing!\].

"The forward fuselage structures were severely damaged both from the
penetration through the exterior columns and the interaction with the
96th floor slab that sliced the fuselage structures in half." P. 173 (p.
287 of 462).

\[Comment: yet no fuselage was visible in the gash or below the impact
zone\].

"By 0.2 s after impact, the wings completely penetrated the exterior
wall, and only the tail structures were outside the tower...The wing
structures were completely fragmented by the penetration through the
exterior wall..." P. 173 (p. 287 of 462).

\[Comment: now full penetration at WTC 1 purportedly was completed at
0.25s instead of 0.20s\].

Figure 7-4 "Entire aircraft inside tower at 0.24-.25 with 30 percent of
initial momentum" for WTC 1 base case impact. P. 178 (p. 292 of 462).

\[Comment: loss of 70 percent of momentum during initial 159 feet
contradicts no deceleration during disappearance of entire aircraft
inside tower.\].

"The calculated debris cloud included 17,400 lbs of debris and 6,700 lbs
of aircraft fuel outside of the tower at the end of the impact analysis,
either rebounding from the impact face (north wall) or passing through
the tower (south wall)." P. 190 (p. 304 of 462).

"By 0.2 s after impact, the full penetration of the aircraft into the
tower was just completed...The airframe was mostly broken up, but some
large sections of the aft fuselage and tail were still intact, having
penetrated through the opening in the south wall produced by thke
forward fuselage structures." P. 219 (p. 333 of 462).

Figure 7-35. "Normalized aircraft momentum for the WTC 2 base case
impact" \[entire aircraft inside tower at 0.2 s\]. P. 224 (p. 338 of
462).

\[Comment: loss of 70 percent of momentum during initial 159 feet
contradicts no deceleration during disappearance of entire aircraft
inside tower.\].

"Total aircraft debris outside tower: 55,800 lb, base case WTC 2
impact." P. 241 (p. 355 of 462).

\[Comment: NIST nor anyone else offers evidence of this phenomenon.\]

"Aircraft debris total outside tower for the more severe WTC 2 impact:
121,000 lb." P. 258 (p. 372 of 462)

Fig. 7-70. "Landing gear (picture) found embedded in exterior panel
knocked free from WTC 1." P. 274 (p. 388 of 462).

"The aircraft impact on WTC 1 resulted in extensive damage to the north
wall of the tower, which failed in the regions of the fuselage, engine,
and fuel-filled wing section impacts. Damage to the exterior wall
extended to the wing tips, but the exterior columns were not completely
failed in the outer wing and vertical stabilizer impact regions." P. 303
(p. 417 of 462). )

\[The NIST Report claims ditto for The aircraft impact on WTC\].

Appendix E, p. 340+ (p. 454 of 462):

WTC 1 videos (n=2):\
The first is the Naudet brothers\
The second WTC 1 impact video is from Pavel Hlavel 2001. All rights
reserved\]. P. 340 (p. 454 of 462).

WTC 2 videos (n=7):\
p. 341 jetliner looks black, shaped like a 747, WABC-TV\
p. 342 Michael Hezarkhan, looks like CNN shot, looks like AA livery,
fuselage nose in WTC 2\
p. 343 Park Foreman, very dark aircraft, darker than UA livery, with two
shiny spots on starboard fuselage\
p. 344 Scott Myers, AA livery with jetliner nearly overhead to left, on
Liberty St. or block south of Liberty?\
p. 345 Evans Fairbanks with jetliner overhead of FBI agent?\
p. 346 WNBC jetliner seen from north\
p. 347 WPIX-TV NYC "fractional" jetliner seen from east?, very dark, sun
doesn't shine on it, wings and engines look amiss, wrong angle

VII\. Landing gear at West and Rector found at the corner of West and
Rector streets Figure 9-122 (Picture).

"Modeling uncertainties may also have contributed to the inability to
predict the trajectory of specific aircraft components." P. 345 (p. 161
of 208).

\[Comment: this landing gear is fabricated evidence as proven here:
<http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones#NBB>\].

### How Disseminated Information was obtained:

Requester obtained the information from and after March 1, 2007 from the
said web pages and pdfs.  It is understood and acknowledged that said
information has been disseminated since September 2005. The data and
analyses offered regarding jetliners impacting the twin towers are
seriously impaired and misleading. This requires, at a minimum, the
corrections set forth and requested hereunder.

 

### Explanation of how Requester Is affected:

Requester submits this request on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated persons.  Requester is a citizen of the United States, a
professor emeritus and maintains a web site
[http://nomoregames.net](http://nomoregames.net/) for the accurate
analysis and dissemination of information about the events of 9/11. 
Requester's business is in the nature of a research and educational
enterprise that has succeeded in providing citizens of the United States
with information concerning the function and the operation of various
governmental agencies that are charged by their enabling legislation,
rules and regulations of conducting certain duties in and for the public
interest, of which and about which each citizen has a vital interest.

 

As indicated, this request is to be understood as being submitted by
requester in his said capacity and either additionally or alternatively
on behalf of other similarly situated persons who are too numerous to
quantify or specifically name.  Requester is adversely affected by the
ongoing threat of promulgation of information that is in need of
correction because the present course of action may result in the
further concealment of serious wrongdoing. Requester is an "original
source" of the analysis presented herein that demonstrates that false
and misleading information has been presented as being accurate when
plainly it is not.

 

Specifically, Information Item Nos. 1-4 fail to comply with applicable
information quality guidelines and standards in a number of particular
ways, including but not limited to the physical principles, facts and
arguments stated above.

 

Requester asserts that the quoted information is demonstrably false and
misleading and must be corrected, together with other information that,
at present, also contains false and misleading statements. 

By copy of this Correction Request to my counsel, Jerry V. Leaphart and
Associates, P.C., I hereby request that he file such other and further
requests for relief as may be suitable based on the original source
information submitted herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Morgan O. Reynolds

Cc\
Jerry V. Leaphart\
8 West Street\
Suite 203\
Danbury, CT 06810

### Addendum:

ARA, as described below, appears to have been the principal contractor
responsible for NIST aircraft impact analysis, as well as a current
contractor for analysis of the destruction of WTC 7:

<http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0334.htm>

### Contracts

### Awards

Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0334, an indefinite deliverable,
indefinite quantity (IDIQ) purchase order has been awarded to APPLIED
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico:

ARA is an engineering firm that specializes in the following areas:
nonlinear structural dynamics under blast and impact loading, vehicle
crashworthiness and impact behavior, aircraft impact analysis, dynamic
fracture modeling and failure analysis, impact and penetration
mechanics, probabilistic engineering mechanics, and structural
engineering. ARA is well qualified to conduct the analysis of the
aircraft impact into the WTC towers with active research programs in
crash, impact, and blast damage of structures for over 20 years. ARA is
selected by the Federal Highway Administration as a Center of Excellence
in finite element crash analyses and is designated by Livermore Software
Technology Corporation (the developer of the LS-DYNA software package)
as a Research Collaborator. Specific examples of the team's past work
include:

-   Analysis of aircraft impact into nuclear power plant containment
    structures and storage containers.

-   Analysis of a fighter aircraft impact into multiple reinforced
    concrete barriers.

-   Fragmentation of aircraft components due to turbine rotor failure.

-   Simulation of railcars in high-speed impacts.

-   Studies of the effects of blast on buildings and their progressive
    collapse.

The specific tasks that ARA will perform include:

1\) Provide estimates of the damage to structural systems due to
aircraft impact -- including exterior walls, floor systems, and interior
core columns.

2\) Provide estimates of the aircraft fuel dispersal during the impact.

3\) Provide estimates and contours of accelerations and deformations as
a function of time in each of the two towers due to aircraft impact to
be used for estimating damage to fire proofing.

4\) Provide a database of the major fragments of the aircraft and
destroyed structural components of the towers to be used for estimating
damage to the mechanical and architectural systems inside the towers.

The impact analyses will be conducted at various levels including: (1)
the component level, (2) the subassembly level, and (3) the global level
to estimate the probable damage to the towers due to aircraft impact.
The analyses will also include simplified and approximate methods.
Analysis of uncertainties using the component, subassembly, global, and
simplified analyses will also be conducted to assess the effect of
uncertainties associated with various parameters on the damage
estimates.

The team from ARA combines engineers from several branches of ARA with
diverse background and experience in crashworthiness, dynamic fracture
analysis, applied mechanics and nonlinear dynamics, probabilistic
mechanics, constitutive modeling, and structural engineering. The team
is led by the three engineers with relevant backgrounds and appropriate
knowledge in impact and crashworthiness studies. Select experience of
these key project personnel is summarized below:

-   Dr. Steven W. Kirkpatrick is the program manager for this project.
    Dr. Kirkpatrick is a senior engineer with 19 years of experience in
    vehicle crashworthiness, structural dynamics, finite element
    analysis, impact and penetration mechanics, and failure analysis. He
    has more than 80 publications in these areas. His research
    experience includes a wide range of government and commercial
    projects for rail, highway, civil, military, and aerospace
    applications. He has been a program leader for many studies
    requiring close collaboration between experimental and computational
    efforts with emphasis on model validation. Dr. Kirkpatrick has a
    doctorate in mechanical engineering from Stanford University.

-   Dr. B. Samuel Holmes is the program supervisor for this project. Dr.
    Holmes is a principal engineer with 40 years of experience in
    vehicle crashworthiness, structural dynamics, failure analysis, and
    fluid mechanics. He has served as a program manager and group leader
    for a variety of projects combining analysis and experiments. He
    acted as principal investigator for studies of train crashworthiness
    and the design of a crashworthy locomotive cab, and automobile
    accidents including compatibility and structural design for high
    speed impact, train aerodynamics, and impact. His experience also
    includes studies of weapons and blast effects on large structures.
    He has more than 40 publications in these areas. Dr. Holmes has a
    doctorate in applied mechanics from Drexel University.

-   Dr. Justin Wu is the technical lead in performing the uncertainty
    analysis of this project. Dr. Wu is the director of probabilistic
    engineering at ARA. He is a renowned expert in probabilistic methods
    with 20 years of experience in the development and application of
    innovative physics-based probabilistic methods for a wide range of
    applications including structural reliability analysis and design of
    space shuttle, aircraft, offshore pipeline, power plant, and
    automotive; nuclear waste repository risk assessment, and hard
    target uncertainty analysis. Dr. Wu heads the development of ARA's
    ProFES (Probabilistic Function Evaluation System) software package,
    previously supported by the Air Force and NASA. He also leads the
    development of methodologies and software tools for hard target
    uncertainty analysis for DTRA, reliability-based multi-disciplinary
    design for NASA, and rotorcraft probabilistic damage tolerance
    analysis for FAA. He has more than 100 publications. Dr. Wu has a
    doctorate in mechanical engineering from University of Arizona.

Other key ARA team members include:

-   Dr. Robert Bocchieri, Senior engineer, will provide expertise in
    constitutive modeling, rate-dependent material behavior, fracture
    mechanics and failure analysis, finite element analysis, structural
    dynamics, and crashworthiness. Dr. Bocchieri has a doctorate in
    aerospace engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.

-   Dr. Lawrence A. Twisdale, Principal Engineer/Scientist, will provide
    expertise in structural engineering and building performance. Dr.
    Twisdale is a licensed professional engineer and has a doctorate in
    civil engineering from the University of Illinois.

-   Mr. Robert Frank, Principal Engineer/Scientist, will provide
    expertise in structural mechanics, structural dynamics, finite
    element analysis, and development and application of simplified
    response models. Mr. Frank is a licensed professional engineer and
    has a Master of Science degree in civil engineering from the
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In addition, the ARA team is augmented by the following experts:

-   Dr. P. V. Banavalkar, President of Ingenium Inc., will provide
    expertise in the analysis and behavior of high-rise steel
    structures. Dr. Banavalkar has over 40 years of project experience
    and ten of his building designs are listed in \"100 of the World's
    Tallest Buildings\" published in 1998 by the Council of Tall
    Buildings and Urban Habitat. His experience includes design for all
    conditions including critical seismic regions, blast-resisting
    structures and systems for prevention of progressive collapse. His
    notable projects include Library Tower in Los Angeles, Fountain
    Place in Dallas, Chase Tower in Houston, and U. S. Bank Place in
    Minneapolis. As a leading expert in his field, Dr. Banavalkar has
    authored more than 40 publications and lectured extensively on
    subjects such as steel structures, seismic stress, and concrete. Dr.
    Banavalkar is a licensed professional engineer and has a doctorate
    in civil engineering from Cornell University.

-   Dr. Matthew H. Koebbe, independent consultant, will provide
    expertise in finite element modeling and automatic mesh generation,
    and nonlinear dynamics. Dr. Koebbe has a doctorate in Mathematics
    from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

<http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/>

### Contracts

For more information, contact Joan Smith, 301-975-6458,
<joan.smith@nist.gov> and Mike Szwed, 301-975-6330,
<michael.szwed@nist.gov>.

[Detailed description of the selection process for external experts and
contractors](http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/solicitation_selection_process.htm)
**(**New**)**

[Subscribe to the WTC mail list to receive notification on new contract
solicitation postings and awards](http://wtc.nist.gov/info/maillist/)

### Awards

11

[SB1341-03-Q-0334](http://www.eps.gov/spg/DOC/NIST/AcAsD/SB1341-03-Q-0334/listing.html)

R \-- Analysis of Aircraft Impacts Into the World Trade Center Towers\
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA)\
9/23/2003\
[Award
Information](http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0334.htm)

**More Information**

17

[SB1341-06-Q-0186](http://www2.fbo.gov/spg/DOC/NIST/AcAsD/SB1341-06-Q-0186/listing.html)

R - World Trade Center 7 Structural Models and Collapse Hypothesis\
Applied Research Associates\
3/31/2006\
[Award
Information](http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm)

[^1]: Conservation laws, in physics, are basic laws that maintain that
    the total value of certain quantities remain unchanged during a
    physical process. Conserved quantities include mass (or matter),
    energy, linear momentum, angular momentum and electric charge. The
    theory of relativity combines the laws of conservation of mass and
    of energy into a single law. Additional conservation laws have
    meaning only on the subatomic level. Momentum, in mechanics, is the
    quantity of motion of a body. The linear momentum of a body is the
    product of its mass and velocity. Linear momentum of a body or
    system of bodies are conserved if no external force acts on it or
    them. The change in velocity (in magnitude and/or direction) of a
    body with respect to time is its acceleration or deceleration. The
    relationship between force (F=mv) and motion was expressed by Isaac
    Newton in his three laws of motion. *The Concise Columbia
    Encyclopedia*, Third Editiion, 1994, pp. 200, 583.