WTC: Were the buildings up to code?

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
[Admin: Thread split and retitled from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1122-The-Prof-Engineer-list-that-truthers-always-talk-about ]

Wow!! Where have I been . . . you mean all three towers were death traps waiting for an excuse to fall ?????? The builders and architects are the real culprits????

Astaneh then responded to my email request:

In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.
http://hercolano2.blogspot.com/2011_08_07_archive.html?m=1

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wow!! Where have I been . . . you mean all three towers were death traps waiting for an excuse to fall ?????? The builders and architects are the real culprits????

Astaneh then responded to my email request:

In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.
http://hercolano2.blogspot.com/2011_08_07_archive.html?m=1

Content from External Source

Clearly that's not what he means. However, equally clearly if the building had been built differently they would not have collapse.

His sentence seems like it's possibly cut off.

The buildings actually WERE death traps, in the event of a plane full of fuel flying into them.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Clearly that's not what he means. However, equally clearly if the building had been built differently they would not have collapse.

His sentence seems like it's possibly cut off.

The buildings actually WERE death traps, in the event of a plane full of fuel flying into them.
Sorry Mick, if the buildings were not built to code the builders are liable for at least partial damages under the law or at least significant criticism and public scrutiny for their failure to comply with established standards . . . I have seen none of this . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry Mick, if the buildings were not built to code the builders are liable for at least partial damages under the law or at least significant criticism and public scrutiny for their failure to comply with established standards . . . I have seen none of this . . .

I suspect he means the codes that were revised AFTER the events. The NIST reports say that the buildings were all conforming to codes current at the time of construction, and were being upgraded as normal.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I suspect he means the codes that were revised AFTER the events. The NIST reports say that the buildings were all conforming to codes current at the time of construction, and were being upgraded as normal.
You suspect? Seems to be a very substantial contradiction that needs to be run to ground . . . either they were in compliance or not . . . serious allegation IMO.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You suspect? Seems to be a very substantial contradiction that needs to be run to ground . . . either they were in compliance or not . . . serious allegation IMO.

Aha:

http://www.astaneh.net/#

By: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., (www.astaneh.net) Professor, University of California, Berkeley

One week after the 9/11/2001 tragedy, started reconnaissance and investigation of the collapsed World Trade Center towers in New York supported by the National Science Foundation. Later, in May of 2002, I testified before the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives on my findings and received drawings of the WTC from the Committee to continue my studies of the WTC structure. Since then, I have led a team of more than 11 highly qualified volunteer researchers and engineers and have completed the analyses of the impact of various airplanes on the World Trade Center towers in order to learn lessons from this tragedy that can be used to prevent such catastrophic collapses and to save lives.
Since the 9/11, each year, I have given a Memorial Lecture on the WTC, remembering the victims and first responders who so heroically gave their lives to save others, and then providing an update on engineering aspects of the collapse and reconstruction of the WTC buildings. This year, I am devoting most of the Memorial Lecture to release, for the first time, the results of our five- year studies of the structural aspects of the WTC design and the collapse. Our 5-year analysis primarily focused on finding an answer to the question of: “What would have happened if instead of the unusual and relatively light bearing wall structural system with no framing, used in the WTC towers, a more traditional system of structural framing used in almost any other structure, was used? Very few people are aware of the fact that the WTC towers did not need to follow any design code and did not need to obtain the construction permit from the City. The structural system used in the towers was an unusual system of “Steel Exterior Bearing Walls and Interior Compression Columns” with no framing system in between. There is no record of use of such a system before or after the design and construction of the World Trade Center. The issue of structural design of the WTC and its effects on the fate of these towers on that tragic day has not been studied or reported by other studies of the WTC. The results presented here will show what would have happened if the towers were designed following the code and using the structural systems used in almost any other building structure instead of the unique system used in the collapsed WTC towers
Content from External Source
Nothing illegal. But he's criticizing what was done.

Another description of the lecture.
http://www.euken.com/group/seaoc/mailarchive/2009c/msg01241.html
Very few people are aware of the fact that the WTC towers did not need
to follow any design code and did not need to obtain the constructionpermit from the City. The structural system used in the towers was anunusual system of “Steel Exterior Bearing Walls and Interior CompressionColumns” with no framing system in between. During this lecture, thefocus will be on the results of a five- years studies of the structuralaspects of the WTC design and the collapse. The 5-year analysisprimarily focused on finding an answer to the question of: "What wouldhave happened if instead of the unusual and relatively light bearingwall structural system with no framing, used in the WTC towers, a moretraditional and code-based system of structural framing, used in otherstructure, was used?”The results presented here will show that if the towers were designedfollowing the code and using the traditional structural framing systemsused in almost any other building structure, such as moment frames,braced frames, shear walls or tube systems, instead of the unique andunusual system used in the collapsed WTC towers, the terrorist attacksmost likely would have resulted in only local damage and not completeand catastrophic collapse of both towers where 3,000 people who weretrapped in them perished. It must be stated that those 19 murderers whoflew the passenger planes into the WTC Towers and their organizers andbackers are fully and directly responsible for this murderous act.However, by learning from this criminal act, it is hoped that we canprevent these criminals in the future from committing mass-murder usingour structures.

Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Aha:

http://www.astaneh.net/#

By: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., (www.astaneh.net) Professor, University of California, Berkeley

One week after the 9/11/2001 tragedy, started reconnaissance and investigation of the collapsed World Trade Center towers in New York supported by the National Science Foundation. Later, in May of 2002, I testified before the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives on my findings and received drawings of the WTC from the Committee to continue my studies of the WTC structure. Since then, I have led a team of more than 11 highly qualified volunteer researchers and engineers and have completed the analyses of the impact of various airplanes on the World Trade Center towers in order to learn lessons from this tragedy that can be used to prevent such catastrophic collapses and to save lives.
Since the 9/11, each year, I have given a Memorial Lecture on the WTC, remembering the victims and first responders who so heroically gave their lives to save others, and then providing an update on engineering aspects of the collapse and reconstruction of the WTC buildings. This year, I am devoting most of the Memorial Lecture to release, for the first time, the results of our five- year studies of the structural aspects of the WTC design and the collapse. Our 5-year analysis primarily focused on finding an answer to the question of: “What would have happened if instead of the unusual and relatively light bearing wall structural system with no framing, used in the WTC towers, a more traditional system of structural framing used in almost any other structure, was used? Very few people are aware of the fact that the WTC towers did not need to follow any design code and did not need to obtain the construction permit from the City. The structural system used in the towers was an unusual system of “Steel Exterior Bearing Walls and Interior Compression Columns” with no framing system in between. There is no record of use of such a system before or after the design and construction of the World Trade Center. The issue of structural design of the WTC and its effects on the fate of these towers on that tragic day has not been studied or reported by other studies of the WTC. The results presented here will show what would have happened if the towers were designed following the code and using the structural systems used in almost any other building structure instead of the unique system used in the collapsed WTC towers
Content from External Source
Nothing illegal. But he's criticizing what was done.

Another description of the lecture.
http://www.euken.com/group/seaoc/mailarchive/2009c/msg01241.html
Very few people are aware of the fact that the WTC towers did not need
to follow any design code and did not need to obtain the constructionpermit from the City. The structural system used in the towers was anunusual system of “Steel Exterior Bearing Walls and Interior CompressionColumns” with no framing system in between. During this lecture, thefocus will be on the results of a five- years studies of the structuralaspects of the WTC design and the collapse. The 5-year analysisprimarily focused on finding an answer to the question of: "What wouldhave happened if instead of the unusual and relatively light bearingwall structural system with no framing, used in the WTC towers, a moretraditional and code-based system of structural framing, used in otherstructure, was used?”The results presented here will show that if the towers were designedfollowing the code and using the traditional structural framing systemsused in almost any other building structure, such as moment frames,braced frames, shear walls or tube systems, instead of the unique andunusual system used in the collapsed WTC towers, the terrorist attacksmost likely would have resulted in only local damage and not completeand catastrophic collapse of both towers where 3,000 people who weretrapped in them perished. It must be stated that those 19 murderers whoflew the passenger planes into the WTC Towers and their organizers andbackers are fully and directly responsible for this murderous act.However, by learning from this criminal act, it is hoped that we canprevent these criminals in the future from committing mass-murder usingour structures.

Content from External Source
So we now have the proximate cause of the collapse(s)!!!! The unique design of these three towers . . . the one and only three high-rise structures to use this design and construction method (not in code but legal). . . Wow!!! Fertile ground for more conspiracy!!! Instead of only the double pay out terrorist clause recently purchased insurance contract, we now have one of kind inferior design and construction accomplished decades before the ramming of the target structures . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So we now have the proximate cause of the collapse(s)!!!! The unique design of these three towers . . . the one and only three high-rise structures to use this design and construction method (not in code but legal). . . Wow!!! Fertile ground for more conspiracy!!! Instead of only the double pay out terrorist clause recently purchased insurance contract, we now have one of kind inferior design and construction accomplished decades before the ramming of the target structures . . .

Wow! indeed.

Unbelievable might be an even better word.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Wow!! Where have I been . . . you mean all three towers were death traps waiting for an excuse to fall ?????? The builders and architects are the real culprits????

Astaneh then responded to my email request:

In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.
http://hercolano2.blogspot.com/2011_08_07_archive.html?m=1

Content from External Source

I second that astonishment. I have never heard that these buildings were of an 'unusual' design and not according to building codes.

This makes something of a mockery of the NIST 'factsheet' IMO, where they state:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfmHow did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
Content from External Source
Here they admit there were structural differences in relation to other instances of fire damaged buildings which did not collapse but there is no suggestion that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were virtually unique design not in accord with building codes etc.

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Content from External Source
And here it seems pretty much defacto that retro fitting of other buildings will be required... which I can find not one occurrence of it happening.


Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.
Content from External Source
Additionally:

NIST is recommending that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety to prevent structural collapse even during infrequent building fires like those in WTC 7 when sprinklers do not function, do not exist, or are overwhelmed by fire.
Content from External Source
is meaningless if buildings are constructed with outside of building codes.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Oxy, good thoughts to ponder . . . if WTC #7 was closer to code and would have failed anyway due to fire . . . what high rise steel reenforced buildings could withstand a significant fire for more than a few hours without suppression ???? Who would have thunk that the Sears tower could collapse with a few hours of free burning???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I second that astonishment. I have never heard that these buildings were of an 'unusual' design and not according to building codes.

Really? I thought the "unusual" design was well known. WTC1 & WTC2 were "tube within a tube". WTC7 was a more typical, but still a "building within a building".

https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+"unusual+design"

This makes something of a mockery of the NIST 'factsheet' IMO, where they state:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfmHow did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
Content from External Source
Here they admit there were structural differences in relation to other instances of fire damaged buildings which did not collapse but there is no suggestion that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were virtually unique design not in accord with building codes etc.

"more typical" does not equate to typical. All three buildings had a unique design, the towers especially so.

I'd be interested by what Astaneh means by "the code" here. The WTC buildings did need to conform to many different codes, specifically The Building Code of the City of New York. There's a detailed description of the codes that applied, and how the WTC met them, here:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05175.pdf

And the NIST investigation found that the construction of all the buildings was in accordance with local building code.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Really? I thought the "unusual" design was well known. WTC1 & WTC2 were "tube within a tube". WTC7 was a more typical, but still a "building within a building".

https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+"unusual+design"

Fair enough... to rephrase: I second that astonishment. I have never heard that these buildings were of an 'unusual' design not in accord with buildings codes, standards and the practice.

"more typical" does not equate to typical. All three buildings had a unique design, the towers especially so
.
Yes all iconic buildings have a unique design, that is not the issue. It is about unique designs that do not comply with accepted building codes, especially when fire is attributed to total collapse as in 7.
I'd be interested by what Astaneh means by "the code" here. The WTC buildings did need to conform to many different codes, specifically The Building Code of the City of New York. There's a detailed description of the codes that applied, and how the WTC met them, here:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05175.pdf

And the NIST investigation found that the construction of all the buildings was in accordance with local building code.

But surely local building codes, would be in addition to (not instead of) National building codes or as you say; 'what does Asteneh mean by "the code"
Also, what I meant instead of
is meaningless if buildings are constructed with outside of building codes.
Is:
is meaningless if buildings are constructed without regard to normally recognised and enforced National building codes
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Local codes generally incorporate by reference a set of national codes, and then amend them. NIST says that they DID meet the then current code. So we need to determine precisely what code they did not meet.

Here's some discussion on the code issue from a former fire chief:

http://www.vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

[h=2]The performance building code[/h] How did lightweight high-rise construction evolve since WWII? It evolved with the help of the so-called performance code. After WWII the builders complained about building codes. They said they were too restrictive and specified every detail of construction. They called the old building codes “specification codes”. They complained the codes specified the size and type and some times even the make of a product used in construction. They decried the specification code as old fashion. They wanted the building codes changed to what they called “performance codes.” They wanted the building codes to specify the performance requirements only; and, not specify the size and type of building material to use. For example, with fire resistive requirements they wanted the code to state just the hours of fire resistance (one, two, three or four hours) required by law; and not to state the specific type and material used to protect structural steel and enclosures for stairways and elevators shafts. For example, a performance building code states: the steel has to be protected against heat of flames for one, two, three or four hours during a fire. It does not state what to use as a fire resisting material. This performance code signaled the end to concrete encasement fire protection and allowed a spray on fire protection for steel and plasterboard enclosed stairs and elevator shafts. Builders hailed the New York City building code of 1968 as a good performance code. However, some fire chiefs decried it as a law that substituted frills for real construction safety. The asbestos spray on coating of steel trusses used in the WTC towers was considered by Chief of the New York City Fire Department, at the time, John T. O’ Hagan to be inferior to concrete encasement of steel. Writing in his book, High Rise Fire and Life Safety. l976, he listed the following problems of spray-on fire protection of steel:


  1. Failure to prepare the steel for spray-on coating adhesion. Rust and dirt allowed spray-on fire retarding coating to scale and fall away from steel during construction
  2. Poor or uneven application of the spray-on fire retarding was discovered during post fire investigations
  3. Variation of spray-on material during manufacture makes it ineffective
  4. Lack of thoroughness in covering the steel during application is a problem
  5. Failure to replace spray-on material dislodged by other trades people performing work around the steel during the construction of the building.

The WTC started construction in the 1970s. And the WTC towers built by the Port Authority of New York did not have to comply with the minimum requirements of the new 1968 performance building code.
Content from External Source
So the issues seem to be:

- The Port Authority did not have to comply with the NYC building code. (However, NIST found that it still did)
- The code was changing from "specification" to "performance". The older code would have required the steel to be encased in concrete, the new code allowed any method of fireproofing.

So I'm think Astaneh's concern with the code also centers around the distinction between "specification" and "performance". The towers were designed with "performance", which allowed them to use novel methods of construction. He's got some pdfs that should explain what he means, but the links are broken. I've emailed him to ask for them.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So the question still remains . . . will the Sears Tower collapse after a few hours of an uncontrolled wildfire??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's the actual WTC code situation, in NIST NCSTAR 1-1B

https://www.metabunk.org//files/NCSTAR 1-1B Building Codes_unlocked.pdf

Chapter 2CODES INCLUDED IN COMPARISON


The Port of New York Authority (whose name was changed to the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey in 1972 and which will be referred to as “the Port Authority”) is not required to comply with the
local building code. As an interstate compact created under a clause of the U.S. Constitution, it is not
bound by the authority having jurisdiction, which in the case of the World Trade Center (WTC) would be
the New York City Department of Buildings. In 1963, the Port of New York Authority, however,
instructed the architect and consulting engineers to prepare their designs for WTC 1 and WTC 2 to
comply with the New York City Building Code. Although it is not explicitly stated in the 1963 letter, the
1938 edition of the Code was in effect at the time. In areas where the Code was not explicit or where
technological advances made portions of it obsolete, the Port Authority directed the consultants to
propose designs “based on acceptable engineering practice,” and required them to inform the WTC
Planning Division when such situations occurred.


In 1965, the Port Authority instructed the design consultants for WTC 1 and WTC 2 to comply with the
second and third drafts of the revised New York City Building Code then being finalized and to undertake
any design revisions necessary to comply with such provisions. The new edition of the New York City
Building Code became effective in December 1968 (The City of New York 1968).


A consortium of Seven World Trade Company and Silverstein Development Corporation designed and
constructed WTC 7 as a Port Authority “Tenant Alteration” project. This was very different from the
cases of WTC 1 and WTC 2. Section 5A.3 of the WTC 7 project specifications (WTC 7 Project
Specifications 1984) required the structural steel to be designed in accordance with the New York City
Building Code in effect at the time and the latest edition of the Specifications for the Design, Fabrication
and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings published by the American Institute of Steel Construction.
When the building was designed in the 1980s, the 1968 edition of the New York City Building Code with
amendments was in effect; no revisions were made to the applicable structural provisions in the New
York City Building Code until 1987.


The building code in effect in the State of New York at the time WTC 1 and WTC 2 were designed was
the New York State Building Construction Code, 1964 edition.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So the question still remains . . . will the Sears Tower collapse after a few hours of an uncontrolled wildfire??

Why is that an important question? The Sears Tower was a different type of construction - bundled tubes, so had a different degree of redundancy. WTC7 fell because a single column failed.

Here's some discussion of the Sears tower and how it would respons in a WTC1 type situation:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/09/09/would-the-sears-tower-have-survived-911
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why is that an important question? The Sears Tower was a different type of construction - bundled tubes, so had a different degree of redundancy. WTC7 fell because a single column failed.

Here's some discussion of the Sears tower and how it would respons in a WTC1 type situation:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/09/09/would-the-sears-tower-have-survived-911

It was a general question about all high-rise construction . . . because of 911 at least two similar types of construction have come into doubt . . . how do we know others are not as vulnerable until one collapses under similar conditions . . .

From the Article you cited above . . . I don't think there is consensus about the possibility . . .

"It's hard to say how the Sears (Willis) Tower wold have performed under a similar attack," he wrote, "because the performance has as much to do with the details as it does the framing system.... While it does seem that the Sears tower would have a lot more redundancy with the 9 bundled tubes, it does still seem conceivable that a well-placed impact in the middle of the portion where there are 5 tubes in a cruciform shape could take out columns and floor framing in parts of all 5 tubes. With the extremely high fire load and long duration of fire, you could imagine the damage spreading to larger areas until enough columns became unbraced to cause a general collapse
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If a fire is big enough and burns long enough, then any steel framed building will collapse. The question is more how big would the fire have to be, and how long would it take.

Think about extremes. If you place a candle under a 6 ton girder, then even if the candle burns forever the girder will be unaffected.

But if you place that same girder over a huge bonfire, then the girder will lose structural strength in a few minutes.

If you encase that girder in fire insulation, an place it over a huge bonfire, then it will take much longer, maybe a few hours.

A fire will only burn as long as there is fuel available. So all building fires are self-limiting even if uncontrolled.

So the answer to the question "will the Sear Tower collapse after a few hours of uncontrolled fire" is "maybe".

But it's a not a very precise question. It's like asking "will I die if I'm stabbed". If you are stabbed in the toe with the a pin, then no. If you are stabbed through the heart with a carving knife, then probably yes. If you are stabbed repeatedly in the torso with an Exacto knife then maybe.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If a fire is big enough and burns long enough, then any steel framed building will collapse. The question is more how big would the fire have to be, and how long would it take.

Think about extremes. If you place a candle under a 6 ton girder, then even if the candle burns forever the girder will be unaffected.

But if you place that same girder over a huge bonfire, then the girder will lose structural strength in a few minutes.

If you encase that girder in fire insulation, an place it over a huge bonfire, then it will take much longer, maybe a few hours.

A fire will only burn as long as there is fuel available. So all building fires are self-limiting even if uncontrolled.

So the answer to the question "will the Sear Tower collapse after a few hours of uncontrolled fire" is "maybe".

But it's a not a very precise question. It's like asking "will I die if I'm stabbed". If you are stabbed in the toe with the a pin, then no. If you are stabbed through the heart with a carving knife, then probably yes. If you are stabbed repeatedly in the torso with an Exacto knife then maybe.

Mick, I understand your argument; however, I think few felt that WTC #7 would or should collapse completely after a few hours of uncontrolled fire . . . in essence, it seemed to many of us, the building (person) was stabbed with the pin and died . . . and we wonder if similar potential exists for other high-rise steel reinforced buildings throughout this country and the world . . . or maybe what we saw was something we simply have no explanation for . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, I understand your argument; however, I think few felt that WTC #7 would or should collapse completely after a few hours of uncontrolled fire . . . in essence, it seemed to many of us, the building (person) was stabbed with the pin and died . . . and we wonder if similar potential exists for other high-rise steel reinforced buildings throughout this country and the world . . . or maybe what we saw was something we simply have no explanation for . . .

Why do you think it was a pin-sized event? The fires burned for hours. It's well understood now why the building collapsed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse
Content from External Source
(emphasis mine)

This unique event has led to specific recommendations:
The old 7 World Trade Center was the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires.[36] Based on its investigation, NIST reiterated several recommendations it had made in its earlier report on the collapse of the Twin Towers, and urged immediate action on a further recommendation: that fire resistance should be evaluated under the assumption that sprinklers are unavailable; and that the effects of thermal expansion on floor support systems be considered.
Content from External Source
There's been lots of study into the issues raised by the collapse. Lots of engineers looking at the problems of fireproofing and progressive collapse. The issues ARE understood, and we DO have an explanation.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Really? I thought the "unusual" design was well known. WTC1 & WTC2 were "tube within a tube". WTC7 was a more typical, but still a "building within a building".

https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+"unusual+design"



"more typical" does not equate to typical. All three buildings had a unique design, the towers especially so.

I'd be interested by what Astaneh means by "the code" here. The WTC buildings did need to conform to many different codes, specifically The Building Code of the City of New York. There's a detailed description of the codes that applied, and how the WTC met them, here:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05175.pdf

And the NIST investigation found that the construction of all the buildings was in accordance with local building code.

L'Enfer encore

The towers' design wasn't that radical at all - it obeys all the rules of good construction practice. Tube within a tube makes it sound a little different to what it was. Those two tubes were quite robustly tied together with steel members spanning from the core to the perimeter - and they made 110 x 33 inch thick floors like this, when you take into account steel decking, concrete, steel supports, plasterboard, service voids. Add to that, the hat-truss, a very robust design of structural steelwork which spanned the top floors and tied the building together. I think this is just another hareng rouge.

More - this idea of 7 being 'a building within a building' - it's meaningless, in the way that it has no relation to reality; sorry, but that's just unmitigated cobblers, I don't care who says it. You mention redundancy, but you don't really understand it if you believe, which you very much appear to, that one column failure sends a building like 7 down in 6.6 seconds, and apprx. 2.5 secs of that in freefall - even Nist admit that, but don't explain it. I'm just beyond flabbergasted you can maintain a straight face doing this. It's fantasy.

What about Nists calculations? Have you made that foia yet? Do you think it's right or wrong that they won't release the data they used to create their 'simulation'? Do you think it's a reasonable excuse that 'public safety might be jeopardized' by the release of performance data on commonly used building materials? (Surely it's the very opposite? if Nist are right). Don't you think it's only right and proper to allow qualified people to check their methods?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You mention redundancy, but you don't really understand it if you believe, which you very much appear to, that one column failure sends a building like 7 down in 6.6 seconds, and apprx. 2.5 secs of that in freefall - even Nist admit that, but don't explain it.

6.6 seconds from what point? Lee, I think you are familiar with the explanation of why WTC 7 fell? The floor around the column failed, the column buckled and failed, more floors around that column failed. The penthouse fell, half the interior of the building was gone before the start of your 6.6 seconds.

Check this video out, your 6.6 seconds starts around 23 seconds into it. You're just ignoring those 23 seconds.
 
Last edited:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
6.6 seconds from what point? Lee, I think you are familiar with the explanation of why WTC 7 fell? The floor around the column failed, the column buckled and failed, more floors around that column failed. The penthouse fell, half the interior of the building was gone before the start of your 6.6 seconds.

Check this video out, your 6.6 seconds starts around 23 seconds into it. You're just ignoring those 23 seconds.


Yes, I've heard the explanation and I say it's cobblers. You really don't need to be an engineer -


Why don't you answer my questions re: Nist etc? Last para
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
apprx. 2.5 secs of that in freefall - even Nist admit that, but don't explain it.

They do explain it. Pages 44-45 of NCSTAR 1A, section 3.6 Timing of collapse initiation and progression
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST Building 7 final report 861610_unlocked.pdf


The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 s. Thetheoretical time for free fall (i.e., at gravitational acceleration) was computed from

t=sqrt(2h/g)


where t = time, s; h = distance, m (ft); and g = gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2 (32.2 ft/s2). This time
was approximately 3.9 s. Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video
evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.
A more detailed examination of the same video led to a better understanding of the vertical motion of the
building in the first several seconds of descent. NIST tracked the downward displacement of a point near
the center of the roofline, fitting the data using a smooth function.3 (The time at which motion of the
roofline was first perceived was taken as time zero.) The fitted displacement function was then
differentiated to estimate the downward velocity as a function of time, shown as a solid curve in Figure 3-
15. Velocity data points (solid circles) were also determined from the displacement data using a central
difference approximation.4 The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about
1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15)
allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was
32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g.


For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in Figure 3-15:
• In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage
corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face.
By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).


• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns
provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued
for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and
t = 4.0 s.



• In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face
encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between
4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).


As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first
18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to Stage 1.
The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global
collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you answer my questions re: Nist etc? Last para

Because it's a silly question. You just raise it to point out that NIST are not releasing the data. If they are not releasing it, then what's the point of me putting in a FOIA request?

You claim you can tell that the collapse is impossible, and that you've done calculations that demonstrate this for at least one building.

Why not release your calculations? If you've got proof that it could not happen, then why are YOU PERSONALLY not releasing your calculations? Just out of spite?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Because it's a silly question. You just raise it to point out that NIST are not releasing the data. If they are not releasing it, then what's the point of me putting in a FOIA request?

You claim you can tell that the collapse is impossible, and that you've done calculations that demonstrate this for at least one building.

Why not release your calculations? If you've got proof that it could not happen, then why are YOU PERSONALLY not releasing your calculations? Just out of spite?


Alright, don't answer that question then. Answer the others instead
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because it's a silly question. You just raise it to point out that NIST are not releasing the data. If they are not releasing it, then what's the point of me putting in a FOIA request?

You claim you can tell that the collapse is impossible, and that you've done calculations that demonstrate this for at least one building.

Why not release your calculations? If you've got proof that it could not happen, then why are YOU PERSONALLY not releasing your calculations? Just out of spite?
Mick, what is the reason for not releasing the data? . . . fear that it will be used by other people to demolish a building? We already know how: cut off the fire suppression systems and make it burn from one to five hours . . . simple recipe really . . .

You are good at computer simulations are you not? . . . is it not easy (easier than not knowing the outcome) knowing the result and building the algorithms to fit the outcome . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
From MICK

Why do you think it was a pin-sized event? The fires burned for hours. It's well understood now why the building collapsed.

Content from External Source
Then let's have a full scale demonstration . . . next time we need to demolish a high-rise with similar structure . . . let's set a raging fire for ten hours and see what happens . . . no need to use explosives . . . just like I suggested using spot lights or lasers markers in the desert to see if pilots can hit a target at 500 feet off the ground at 500 mph in a 767 . . . easy to do . . . why not???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, what is the reason for not releasing the data . . . fear that it will be used by other people to demolish a building? We already know how: cut off the fire suppression systems and make it burn from one to five hours . . . simple recipe really . . .

I imagine, yes, someone though it would allow people to figure out where to put bombs. I can't say I agree with it, but consider that from their point of view there's really no upside to releasing the data (as they consider 9/11 truthers to be fringe conspiracy theorists), so they are just using an excess of caution.

Remember the first attack on the WTC was a large bomb in the basement. It failed because of the placement of the bomb. If they could work out where the best place to put them bomb was, then they might have succeeded.

Now of course you might ask what's the harm, as WTC7 does not exist. But the difficult thing is not modeling the shape of the new building, blueprints and construction photos exist, as does the building itself. it's the figures for strengths and masses of the individual connections. That's the type of thing the WTC7 model has with a really high degree of accuracy. Someone decided that's information best kept away from potential bombers. Nobody in power is likely to override it - there's just no upside for them to do so. It's kind of like the crap surrounding exporting encryption technology. Most people agree the restrictions do nothing, however nobody in power is likely to change the law, because it's anti-terror.

You are good at computer simulations are you not . . . is it not easy (easier than not knowing the outcome) knowing the result and building the algorithms to fit the outcome . . .

Yes it is. But you can't stop other people from creating their own models, and pointing out you are wrong. If NIST had faked the simulation, then it would eventually be revealed.

You know why AE911 does not start a fundraising drive to pay for an independent model to be built? It's because A) there are really not that many truthers. And B) they know it will just confirm the NIST finding.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
From MICK

Why do you think it was a pin-sized event? The fires burned for hours. It's well understood now why the building collapsed.

Content from External Source
Then let's have a full scale demonstration . . . next time we need to demolish a high-rise with similar structure . . . let's set a raging fire for ten hours and see what happens . . . no need to use explosives . . . just like I suggested using spot lights or lasers markers in the desert to see if pilots can hit a target at 500 feet off the ground at 500 mph in a 767 . . . easy to do . . . why not???

Because it's not guaranteed that the building will collapse, or collapse safely, or collapse fully, and you would be left with a building in an unsafe state that would then cost 10x to demolish. Nor is it likely that the EPA would approve the burn.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I imagine, yes, someone though it would allow people to figure out where to put bombs. I can't say I agree with it, but consider that from their point of view there's really no upside to releasing the data (as they consider 9/11 truthers to be fringe conspiracy theorists), so they are just using an excess of caution.

Remember the first attack on the WTC was a large bomb in the basement. It failed because of the placement of the bomb. If they could work out where the best place to put them bomb was, then they might have succeeded.

Now of course you might ask what's the harm, as WTC7 does not exist. But the difficult thing is not modeling the shape of the new building, blueprints and construction photos exist, as does the building itself. it's the figures for strengths and masses of the individual connections. That's the type of thing the WTC7 model has with a really high degree of accuracy. Someone decided that's information best kept away from potential bombers. Nobody in power is likely to override it - there's just no upside for them to do so. It's kind of like the crap surrounding exporting encryption technology. Most people agree the restrictions do nothing, however nobody in power is likely to change the law, because it's anti-terror.



Yes it is. But you can't stop other people from creating their own models, and pointing out you are wrong. If NIST had faked the simulation, then it would eventually be revealed.

You know why AE911 does not start a fundraising drive to pay for an independent model to be built? It's because A) there are really not that many truthers. And B) they know it will just confirm the NIST finding.


Cobblers! LoL!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
From Mick

Yes it is. But you can't stop other people from creating their own models, and pointing out you are wrong. If NIST had faked the simulation, then it would eventually be revealed.

You know why AE911 does not start a fundraising drive to pay for an independent model to be built? It's because A) there are really not that many truthers. And B) they know it will just confirm the NIST finding.

Content from External Source
How can they run the simulation if you don't have the data NIST has . . . . keep the data secret forever and no one can challenge you . . . simple recipe . . .

I did not suggest a independent model . . . I suggested using fire instead of explosives to demolish a high-rise condemned building . . . and yes there are not enough truthers to make a difference . . . it doesn't mean they are wrong . . . most people are too busy and don't want to be involved with fringe issues . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
From MICK

Why do you think it was a pin-sized event? The fires burned for hours. It's well understood now why the building collapsed.

Content from External Source
Then let's have a full scale demonstration . . . next time we need to demolish a high-rise with similar structure . . . let's set a raging fire for ten hours and see what happens . . . no need to use explosives . . . just like I suggested using spot lights or lasers markers in the desert to see if pilots can hit a target at 500 feet off the ground at 500 mph in a 767 . . . easy to do . . . why not???


I thought that was a great idea first time you posited it. It wouldn't settle the matter, but it would be very interesting indeed. I'd probably even turn on a tv for that!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
From Mick

Because it's not guaranteed that the building will collapse, or collapse safely, or collapse fully, and you would be left with a building in an unsafe state that would then cost 10x to demolish. Nor is it likely that the EPA would approve the burn.

Content from External Source
But Mick, everyone knows that it would fall . . . and almost straight down . . . it happened three times in one day . . . and well, why not supply the heat (using heating coils) on strategic floor joints . . . you know . . . like the one that brought down the penthouse in WTC#7. . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Okay, so why has nobody actually taken to the trouble to model WTC7 (or 1 or 2) to demonstrate why NIST is incorrect?

Why don't you? You're so passionate about Nist and their report - you don't need to be a genius to see that it doesn't make sense. It really is that basic. It's non-science dressed as science. It's desperately depressing.

I have to be honest, I can't believe this is just a hobby for you. There appears to be too much at stake; and too big a hole in the available evidence to reconcile.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
From Mick

Because it's not guaranteed that the building will collapse, or collapse safely, or collapse fully, and you would be left with a building in an unsafe state that would then cost 10x to demolish. Nor is it likely that the EPA would approve the burn.

Content from External Source
But Mick ,everyone knows that it would fall . . . and almost straight down . . . it happened three times in one day . . . and well, why not supply the heat using heating coils on strategic floor joints . . . you know . . . like the one that brought down the penthouse in WTC#7. . .

You are being silly now. How would you know it would fall straight down unless it's EXACTLY the same as WTC7? How would they know which are the strategic floor joints without spending months on computer analysis? And if they knew it, then why would they do it at all? Just to satisfy Truthers? What you are suggesting would cost millions. Why would someone do that?

Again, there is NO UPSIDE for anyone to spend money to satisfy Truthers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you? You're so passionate about Nist and their report - you don't need to be a genius to see that it doesn't make sense. It really is that basic. It's non-science dressed as science. It's desperately depressing.

I have to be honest, I can't believe this is just a hobby for you. There appears to be too much at stake; and too big a hole in the available evidence to reconcile.

What evidence could I give you to demonstrate this is just a hobby?

I'm not "passionate" about the NIST reports. I just don't see what's wrong with them.

You claim that you've proven them wrong, yet you won't release your proof. Why not?

If I do it, then nothing changes.

If you do it, then EVERYTHING CHANGES, so why not?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
H CLAIM: USS Omaha videos were taken on the ship's "Combat Information Center" by "VIPER team" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 5
H Were Fravor and co in the middle of a test of radar spoofing tech? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 20
Akton Claim: Ballots in Wayne County were run through the tabulator and counted as many as 4-5 times Election 2020 16
Mick West Trump's Claim that "THE OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS." Election 2020 6
Mick West Ghost Doll Reflection - Mistakes Were Made Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Cube Radio Donald Trump initially said he thought there were "bombs" on the planes on 9/11 9/11 44
Mick West Why Were There Contrails Today, But Not Yesterday? It's the Weather! Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Keith Johnson CLAIM: Dispatch Log Shows CT State Police Were at Sandy Hook School Hours Before the Shooting Sandy Hook 1
TemplarJLS Debunked:"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be... - Prince Philip Quotes Debunked 3
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
Mick West Debunked: Why were Life Star helicopters not deployed to Sandy Hook School? Sandy Hook 208
scombrid Is any crisis real? Yes, even the mall attacks in Kenya were fake. Conspiracy Theories 6
Mick West How to Tag someone in a post to let them know they were mentioned How To 3
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Titus Dafoe General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years Conspiracy Theories 61
sunyatajon If Chemtrails were real, they would affect the perpetrators Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Thomas Hughson Were the conspiracy theorist right about Fluoride? Conspiracy Theories 178
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Juror No. 8 Obama kills Osama: What if real reporters were allowed White House press passes? General Discussion 0
T Expulsion of Compressed Air and Debris from Collapsing Buildings 9/11 59
benthamitemetric Subpixel Motion Tracking: Methods, Accuracy, and Application to Video of Collapsing Buildings 9/11 192
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
P Claim: Biden campaign short code '30330' is veiled message Election 2020 29
Mick West Decoded: Statue with a QR code head Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 26
Mick West How To Embed CodePen (Interactive Javascript code and animations) How To 2
George B Why was the US code changed to make human experimentation illegal? Chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 42
Related Articles


























Related Articles

Top