Why aren't the WTC tower construction drawings publicly available?

[Tony Szamboti]

Lets change the question a bit from why haven't they been released to the public, why should they?

Honestly, there is no reason for them to be released to the general public. A small minority with some crackpot ideas that have no relation to reality is insufficient reason to do so.

It could take the wind right out of a lot of the conspiracy theories if people like Purdue could do a drawing based full blown finite element analysis or if people like Dr. Bazant and Dr. Greening didn't have to guess at the mass distribution in the buildings. Honestly, there are a lot of reasons to release them to the public as this country has a fever with conspiracy theories over this issue right now and no amount of ad hominem is going to put it down. Only science will do it as a lot of people are not accepting NIST's stopping at the point where the towers were poised for collapse.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wait, realcddeal is suggesting that the government should be forcing private citizens and companies to give up copyright material for the public?

Isn't this one of the very foundations of fascism? No private ownership?

No, I am saying that it would be a good faith thing on the part of our government to publish the drawings for the buildings to allow scrutiny and settle the issue. There would be tremendous scrutiny and nobody would get away with any crackpot ideas. It would literally squash the life right out of the conspiracy theories if NIST is proven right. Of course, the government would have to procure the rights to publish the drawings. NIST was able to publish certain things which I believe were proprietary to the design of the buildings.

I believe the drawings for the original Tacoma Narrows bridge (which failed five months after being built in 1940 due to resonance in a 42 mph wind) were made available and there was a huge amount of research done in more than one place to prevent that type of failure from happening again. The same would apply to the design against progressive collapse.

 

[DGM]

It could take the wind right out of a lot of the conspiracy theories if people like Purdue could do a drawing based full blown finite element analysis or if people like Dr. Bazant and Dr. Greening didn't have to guess at the mass distribution in the buildings. Honestly, there are a lot of reasons to release them to the public as this country has a fever with conspiracy theories over this issue right now and no amount of ad hominem is going to put it down. Only science will do it as a lot of people are not accepting NIST's stopping at the point where the towers were poised for collapse.

I think you over estimating the truth movement. Outside of the internet fringe it simply does not hold any credibility. I for one and many others I know have never even met one. To most it's a non-issue. Not unlike UFO's and such.

 

[MarkyX]

It would literally squash the life right out of the conspiracy theories if NIST is proven right.

No it wouldn't. Conspriacy Theories don't even need evidence to prove their stuff holds merit, yet we still see film school rejects, rich theologions, and angry muslim professors still preach about the CTers.

The problem with the 9/11 deniers is they believe they don't hold any responsibility when making accusations. If they wish to be taken seriously by the media or the scientific community, they would need to go in the right channels instead of suggesting that everyone is part of the coverup.

So no, no matter how many times NIST has proven to be correct or any other expert on the subject matter has said that the official story is true, it will never kill off the theorists. As time passes by for these morons, they have come up with more insane theories for the public to try and side with them (e.g. NYFD is part of it, thermite bombs, fake planes, etc)

 

[kookbreaker]

It could take the wind right out of a lot of the conspiracy theories if people like Purdue could do a drawing based full blown finite element analysis or if people like Dr. Bazant and Dr. Greening didn't have to guess at the mass distribution in the buildings. Honestly, there are a lot of reasons to release them to the public as this country has a fever with conspiracy theories over this issue right now and no amount of ad hominem is going to put it down. Only science will do it as a lot of people are not accepting NIST's stopping at the point where the towers were poised for collapse.

Oh yes, of course you're right. Its just like when after the movie 'JFK' came out and those documents that Kevin Costner mentions in the movie were released under the order of the Senate? Remember how they turned out to have nothing important and that stopped the JFK conspiracy theories cold?

Oh wait. It didn't! It didn't even come close! JFK CTs just went along their merry path. At least those documents were not private property!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No it wouldn't. Conspriacy Theories don't even need evidence to prove their stuff holds merit, yet we still see film school rejects, rich theologions, and angry muslim professors still preach about the CTers.

The problem with the 9/11 deniers is they believe they don't hold any responsibility when making accusations. If they wish to be taken seriously by the media or the scientific community, they would need to go in the right channels instead of suggesting that everyone is part of the coverup.

So no, no matter how many times NIST has proven to be correct or any other expert on the subject matter has said that the official story is true, it will never kill off the theorists. As time passes by for these morons, they have come up with more insane theories for the public to try and side with them (e.g. NYFD is part of it, thermite bombs, fake planes, etc)

Don't you think allowing the world to see the design would help with learning more on how to prevent progressive collapses? Or do you believe we should just go with one organization's suggestions in a matter as large as this one? What if there are similar terror strikes in the future of tall buildings where collapses that could have been prevented weren't because there was no brainstorming which requires a full understanding of the construction? Like I said this isn't what happened in the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster. Everyone was invited to take a look and suggest ways to improve the design of suspension bridges.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh yes, of course you're right. Its just like when after the movie 'JFK' came out and those documents that Kevin Costner mentions in the movie were released under the order of the Senate? Remember how they turned out to have nothing important and that stopped the JFK conspiracy theories cold?

Oh wait. It didn't! It didn't even come close! JFK CTs just went along their merry path. At least those documents were not private property!

You are talking apples and oranges.

 

[Hokulele]

Just one note to add in here. It is highly unlikely that any complete set of as-builts ever existed, other than at the property itself. As new tenents sign lease agreements, they often have requirements that create a unique set of design documents. These are all privately owned by the designers. The main reason construction documents remain the property of the design firm has to do with intellectual property rights. There is nothing preventing the designer from reusing their ideas, but law prevents the owner, contractor, and any other third parties from design reuse.

ETA: In the case of the Tacoma Narrows bridge, as it was a flawed design to begin with, I can't see how the owner would want to reuse it.

 

[DGM]

Don't you think allowing the world to see the design would help with learning more on how to prevent progressive collapses? Or do you believe we should just go with one organization's suggestions in a matter as large as this one? What if there are similar terror strikes in the future of tall buildings where collapses that could have been prevented weren't because there was no brainstorming which requires a full understanding of the construction? Like I said this isn't what happened in the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster. Everyone was invited to take a look and suggest ways to improve the design of suspension bridges.

I would believe in a legitimate engineering study for that purpose they would have no problems getting them.

 

[qarnos]

There have been floor plans released via leak recently, but these ae not actual blueprints for the buildings.

Weren't the floor plans supposed to blow the whole conspiracy wide open? Whatever happened to that?

 

[kookbreaker]

Don't you think allowing the world to see the design would help with learning more on how to prevent progressive collapses? Or do you believe we should just go with one organization's suggestions in a matter as large as this one? What if there are similar terror strikes in the future of tall buildings where collapses that could have been prevented weren't because there was no brainstorming which requires a full understanding of the construction? Like I said this isn't what happened in the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster. Everyone was invited to take a look and suggest ways to improve the design of suspension bridges.

See this?

Its the Comcast building presently under construction in Philadelphia. When completed (its much further along than shown in the photo) it will be the tallest building in Philadelphia.

See that thing in the center? Its concrete. Why? The lessons of the Towers were learned. Probably even before NIST was concieved.

Stop making up excuses for intruding on private property. Conspiracy freaks have been exclaiming for years that is they get ahold of 'X' then they'd be satisfied. This has never happeded, ever.

In fact, remember when troothers said 'just release the videos from around the Pentagon and we'll shut up'. They were released, they showed nothing as they were not pointed at the Pentagon, and the troothers never shut up.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just one note to add in here. It is highly unlikely that any complete set of as-builts ever existed, other than at the property itself. As new tenents sign lease agreements, they often have requirements that create a unique set of design documents. These are all privately owned by the designers. The main reason construction documents remain the property of the design firm has to do with intellectual property rights. There is nothing preventing the designer from reusing their ideas, but law prevents the owner, contractor, and any other third parties from design reuse.

ETA: In the case of the Tacoma Narrows bridge, as it was a flawed design to begin with, I can't see how the owner would want to reuse it.

You are missing the point. It was for the betterment of everyone as well as the design of a future Tacoma Narrows brdige that the drawings were released so that the reasons for the failure could be determined and corrected. The reasons for failure were determined and corrected and today we have no reason to fear suspension bridges and wind combinations anywhere in the world. The same could be done here in terms of progressive collapse if an economically viable enhancement could be made. But that requires free use of the drawings to get the best ideas. This is something governments routinely do for the public safety and welfare. This is why we have codes. When failures occur the problem is discerned publicly and corrections to the codes are made. NIST didn't complete the analysis and that could be done over time. Universities would make projects out of this and I bet an economically viable design against progrssive collapse would be developed. This is also why we have case studies in Universities so the same mistakes aren't made again.

 

[Kryptos]

I have understood that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned them. They are a public entity and should make them available since the WTC buildings no longer exist and security would not be an issue. Larry Silverstein only leased the buildings and would not retain any permanent rights to the drawings, so they would not be strictly in private hands as some above have stated. The proprietary issue could be a drawback but I believe that would only be if the designers insisted on it as it seems like many skyscrapers used the open floor design after it was done on the twin towers.

The Port Authority had its headquarters in the WTC. Entirely possible that some of the drawings were kept in the headquarters, and thus no longer exist. NIST worked with what Leslie Robertson was able to provide.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

See this?

[qimg]http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower1.jpg[/qimg]

Its the Comcast building presently under construction in Philadelphia. When completed (its much further along than shown in the photo) it will be the tallest building in Philadelphia.

See that thing in the center? Its concrete. Why? The lessons of the Towers were learned. Probably even before NIST was concieved.

Stop making up excuses for intruding on private property. Conspiracy freaks have been exclaiming for years that is they get ahold of 'X' then they'd be satisfied. This has never happeded, ever.


In fact, remember when troothers said 'just release the videos from around the Pentagon and we'll shut up'. They were released, they showed nothing as they were not pointed at the Pentagon, and the troothers never shut up.

Kook, I live right outside of Philadelphia and pass near that building everyday on the way to work. So the core is concrete and you seem to be saying that would stop a collapse like we saw on the towers. How does that stop the floor trusses from sagging and pulling on the perimeter beams? You do realize that there is no physical evidence for high core column temperatures in the columns tested by NIST from the twin towers don't you? So it had to be something else.

 

[kookbreaker]

You are missing the point. It was for the betterment of everyone as well as the design of a future Tacoma Narrows brdige that the drawings were released so that the reasons for the failure could be determined and corrected. The reasons for failure were determined and corrected and today we have no reason to fear suspension bridges and wind combinations anywhere in the world.

Suspension bridges were perfectly safe before and after TN. TN's design was a fluke brought on by an attempt to save bucks by trying a different roadbed design. No bridge was built like it before and even before it collapsed it was unlikely to ever be used again (Nobody else wanted a 'Galluping Gertie').

Any studies of TN after the fact did not result in changes to the way bridges were built. The engineers had already made their minds up about that from the first sway of Galluping Gertie.

 

[kookbreaker]

Kook, I live right outside of Philadelphia and pass near that building everyday on the way to work. So the core is concrete and you seem to be saying that would stop a collapse like we saw on the towers. How does that stop the floor trusses from sagging and pulling on the perimeter beams?

It doesn't. I don't know what system they are using and it may not be trusses. that part of the design I am not privy to. The concrete core assures that heat is not an issue on the core.

You do realize that there is no physical evidence for high core column temperatures in the columns tested by NIST from the twin towers don't you?

You do realise that you are completely wrong and are perhaps deliberately misunderstanding the purpose of several NIST tests, don't you?

So it had to be something else.

Wrong.

 

[AZCat]

You do realize that there is no physical evidence for high core column temperatures in the columns tested by NIST from the twin towers don't you? So it had to be something else.

I didn't think the NIST was able to perform temperature exposure tests on the core columns. The paint test they developed was IIRC only useful on the perimeter columns (and then only on the ones with paint left).

 

[Hokulele]

Suspension bridges were perfectly safe before and after TN. TN's design was a fluke brought on by an attempt to save bucks by trying a different roadbed design. No bridge was built like it before and even before it collapsed it was unlikely to ever be used again (Nobody else wanted a 'Galluping Gertie').

Any studies of TN after the fact did not result in changes to the way bridges were built. The engineers had already made their minds up about that from the first sway of Galluping Gertie.

Yup, they omitted the trusses called for in the original design. Without the extra stiffening, the bridge was doomed.

 

[T.A.M.]

why not just cut the "for the better of the world" "to help squash most CTs" Bull crap, and just admit, you want the plans because you think there is something to be found within them to contradict NIST...plain and simple, end of story.

God I hate it when people get on like that...

If you are so concerned, write the port authority and ask them why they have not released the plans. If you do not like their answer, hire a lawyer to investigate it further...

TAM

 

[kookbreaker]

You are talking apples and oranges.

No I am not. You claimed that releaseing the blueprints would satisfy CTers. I showed an example where this is not the case. Its is apples to apples, bucko.