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

[AZCat]

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.

It is actually pretty important that very few copies of the as-builts are kept. The more copies there are, the greater the likelihood that they will not match. Nobody likes to have to go crawling around a building re-as-builting stuff.

 

[kookbreaker]

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).

Indeed, the test was done solely for confirmation of the computer model of the fire. It was not done to determine the 'highest temperature' of the columns.

That test has been misrepresented by troothers for a while now. Deliberately so. realcddeal would seem to be among their dishonest ranks.

 

[Z]

It would never resolve anything. CTists would simply declare them fake, doctored, outdated, anything to leave some room to add their imaginary invisible eternally-fresh explosives everywhere. This has already been seen with other released documents, images, plans, etc.

Nothing at all will convince some CTists that this was not a controlled demolition, so violating copyright certainly isn't going to serve any purpose whatsoever.

And we're already designing newer, safer buildings - so that work is already done and over with.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

do you twoofers ever research at all? Just last month (when you joined) this thread was generated by Architect, detailing how the 9/11 disaster and NIST Report has impacted building design...
Wake up, get a life, and do a little research. It really is not hard. You just look around--"The truth is out there, but the lies are all in your head"
If you can't be bothered, then expect more wise guy remarks as you follow the herd, never bothering to think even a little bit.

 

[Hokulele]

It is actually pretty important that very few copies of the as-builts are kept. The more copies there are, the greater the likelihood that they will not match. Nobody likes to have to go crawling around a building re-as-builting stuff.

Good point. Although I haven't done that with buildings, I have done re-as-builts with infrastructure enough to know that the process is nasty. With elements such as bridges and highways, we generally do not do a survey unless there is a major renovation planned.

 

[DavidJames]

This is another example of CTists showing their knowledge is mostly from TV and movies. TV and movies tell us that you can get the blueprints for anything you want by going to the library or from your old girlfriend at city hall.

 

[Gravy]

I have understood that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned them. They are a public entity...

This isn't an accurate statement, although it can be hard to define exactly what the Port Authority is. The simplest definition might be "quasi-public." It has the trappings of a government agency: its commissioners are appointed by the governors of NY and NJ, and its job is to build and operate public works, but much of its property is privately owned, operated, and is subject to neither governmental nor public restraint: e.g the World Trade Center. You may recall that unlike almost every other structure in NYC, the WTC was not required to meet local building codes (although the PA, of course, agreed to do so).

The man who thought up this quasi-public institution and wrote the laws that originally allowed it to operate as a wildly profitable fiefdom was Robert Moses. He began his career as a liberal reforming legislator. Soon he discovered the value of learning to write laws favorable to his goals that were carefully crafted to avoid the objections of other legislators. This ability made him the most powerful man in New York City and State for 40 years. Moses, who was absolutely brilliant, became deeply corrupted by his own power and left his early populist inclinations far behind.

A biography of Moses, "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro, is one of the best books of any kind on any subject that I've read. I cannot recommend it highly enough. I consider it essential reading for people who live in the NY metro area and for anyone who's interested in urban history, urban design and infrastructure, and politics. Much of the book is about Moses' formation and operation of the PA.

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...

You make the mistake of thinking that professional people go about their day thinking, "How can I design this to avoid the delusions of conspiracists?" When you fund the new $200 million Purdue Realcddeal Science Wing, then you can gently suggest that they do this work on your behalf.

 

[Gravy]

This is another example of CTists showing their knowledge is mostly from TV and movies. TV and movies tell us that you can get the blueprints for anything you want by going to the library or from your old girlfriend at city hall.

Actually, all you have to do is type "WTC blueprints" into your NWO search engine. The blue screen will blink "Searching" in white 128-point type for a few seconds, then "WTC blueprints found." Then with three keystrokes you email the blueprints to Jack Bauer's nuclear-powered cellphone, and in four seconds he has navigated to the detail he needs on his 2" screen. If you click on any part of the blueprint, say, a beam, and keep clicking on the icon that looks like a magnifying glass, you can zoom in to see the atomic structure of that particular piece, brought to you in real time, by special satellites with really good optics.

NWOh, so easy!

 

[uk_dave]

Makes Google Earth look quite puny in comparison.

 

[T.A.M.]

We should rename Gravy, as "Encyclopedia Newyorkia"...lol

TAM

 

[Alferd_Packer]

How many of you have ever actually seen a set of structural blueprints for a high rise building. I’ll bet that the first time you saw a set of structural schedules, that they didn’t look anything like you thought they would.

Almost all of the data can be found in the NIST reports anyway.

The buildings actually had very simple structures.

 

[AZCat]

How many of you have ever actually seen a set of structural blueprints for a high rise building. I’ll bet that the first time you saw a set of structural schedules, that they didn’t look anything like you thought they would.

Almost all of the data can be found in the NIST reports anyway.

The buildings actually had very simple structures.

I've never done a high-rise building. We don't have many here.

 

[BigAl]

I would expect that by 2000, the plans, at least the ones necessary for ongoing operation, had been put into a CAD system. That system was away from WTC or there should be backups. Making copies is easy, it just takes permission and money.

 

[BeAChooser]

Indeed, the test was done solely for confirmation of the computer model of the fire.

Actually I don't think that was the reason, but it was the result.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

deleted due to redunancy

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Indeed, the test was done solely for confirmation of the computer model of the fire. It was not done to determine the 'highest temperature' of the columns.

That test has been misrepresented by troothers for a while now. Deliberately so. realcddeal would seem to be among their dishonest ranks.

Kook, it seems it is you who don't have your facts straight yet are quick to say I seem dishonest. NIST did more than paint testing for evidence of temperatures experienced by the steel in the fire affected areas. They also didn't just do calibration tests for the computer model. They were looking to see what temperatures the actual steel experienced. What you and the fellow you responded to either don't know or fail to mention is that NIST also did microstructural analysis. You see the spheroidization of steel is changed in a linear way by temperature. Below are a couple of links to specifics in the report, but you two really should read NISTNCSTAR1-3 in its entirety before saying someone is misrepresenting something.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf see para. 6.6
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#micro

 

[kookbreaker]

Kook, it seems it is you who don't have your facts straight yet are quick to say I seem dishonest. NIST did more than paint testing for evidence of temperatures experienced by the steel in the fire affected areas. They also didn't just do calibration tests for the computer model. They were looking to see what temperatures the actual steel experienced. What you and the fellow you responded to either don't know or fail to mention is that NIST also did microstructural analysis. You see the spheroidization of steel is changed in a linear way by temperature. Below are a couple of links to specifics in the report, but you two really should read NISTNCSTAR1-3 in its entirety before saying someone is misrepresenting something.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf see para. 6.6
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#micro

Please spare me your pettifoggery. Your quote was this:

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.

The last paragraph of 6.6 indicates that some peices, but by no means all, did not reach critical 650 temps. Keep in mind that limited pieces were availabel to NIST as they had to be a) exposed to fire and b) indentifiable.

The NIST work with these pieces was limited and they knew it. To delcare any declaration that this is some kind of negative evidence is nonsense, but extrapolation beyond the pale SOP for the CT crowd. That is dishonesty.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Please spare me your pettifoggery. Your quote was this:



The last paragraph of 6.6 indicates that some peices, but by no means all, did not reach critical 650 temps. Keep in mind that limited pieces were availabel to NIST as they had to be a) exposed to fire and b) indentifiable.

The NIST work with these pieces was limited and they knew it. To delcare any declaration that this is some kind of negative evidence is nonsense, but extrapolation beyond the pale SOP for the CT crowd. That is dishonesty.

Geez, Kook a more complete explanation would provide the fact that most of the pieces never even got to 350 degrees C where steel just starts to lose some of its strength.

On top of that you raise the good question of WHY the number of pieces NIST had to work with was limited. You say that they had to be exposed to fire. There had to be a lot more pieces exposed to fire than what NIST was given if we are to believe that fires brought down the towers. The tower beams and columns were identifiable by markings in every case for the core columns. WHY did they only have two to test?

I tend to think it is a real problem for the credibility of the investigation for NIST not to have gotten ALL of the pieces from the fire affected areas. WHY didn't they have all of the pieces from the fire affected areas? If NIST had all of the pieces from the fire affected areas we would know whether fires actually brought those towers down and we wouldn't have even needed computer models. That would be honest and I don't blame NIST for not having all of the evidence they needed to do the job right.

However what they do have is evidence no matter what you say. The problem for someone who wants to believe that fires brought down the towers is that the evidence, limited for reasons unknown, doesn't support the fire induced collapse theory.

 

[A W Smith]

This isn't an accurate statement, although it can be hard to define exactly what the Port Authority is. The simplest definition might be "quasi-public." It has the trappings of a government agency: its commissioners are appointed by the governors of NY and NJ, and its job is to build and operate public works, but much of its property is privately owned, operated, and is subject to neither governmental nor public restraint: e.g the World Trade Center. You may recall that unlike almost every other structure in NYC, the WTC was not required to meet local building codes (although the PA, of course, agreed to do so).

The man who thought up this quasi-public institution and wrote the laws that originally allowed it to operate as a wildly profitable fiefdom was Robert Moses. He began his career as a liberal reforming legislator. Soon he discovered the value of learning to write laws favorable to his goals that were carefully crafted to avoid the objections of other legislators. This ability made him the most powerful man in New York City and State for 40 years. Moses, who was absolutely brilliant, became deeply corrupted by his own power and left his early populist inclinations far behind.

A biography of Moses, "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro, is one of the best books of any kind on any subject that I've read. I cannot recommend it highly enough. I consider it essential reading for people who live in the NY metro area and for anyone who's interested in urban history, urban design and infrastructure, and politics. Much of the book is about Moses' formation and operation of the PA.

I learned a lot about Robert Moses from the American Experience seven part documentary New York in parts six and seven. I have the DIVX on my computer after watching most of it on TV. A must have for those interested in the history of New York City

 

[kookbreaker]

Geez, Kook a more complete explanation would provide the fact that most of the pieces never even got to 350 degrees C where steel just starts to lose some of its strength.

Which is untrue, even from the paragraph you listed.

On top of that you raise the good question of WHY the number of pieces NIST had to work with was limited. You say that they had to be exposed to fire. There had to be a lot more pieces exposed to fire than what NIST was given if we are to believe that fires brought down the towers. The tower beams and columns were identifiable by markings in every case for the core columns. WHY did they only have two to test?

Because markings are not permanent, they can be destroyed by many means. Pieces can be shattered, burned beyond any markings surviving. More to the point is that NIST was looking for samples that showed signs of mechanical failure, not representative of temperature.

I tend to think it is a real problem for the credibility of the investigation for NIST not to have gotten ALL of the pieces from the fire affected areas. WHY didn't they have all of the pieces from the fire affected areas?

Explained above. This a credibility problem for you. Engineers and other relevant professions understand the criteria, and they don't let random kooks at the controls.

If NIST had all of the pieces from the fire affected areas we would know whether fires actually brought those towers down and we wouldn't have even needed computer models.

Nonsense. Complete and utter dreck and nonsense.

Computer Modeling is the only method of covering such a disaster, this is not a puzzle you put together.

That would be honest and I don't blame NIST for not having all of the evidence they needed to do the job right.

So you are accusing NIST of lying on the basis of some modeling-by-parts that you came up with and that the engineering world is unfamilar with. How nice.

However what they do have is evidence no matter what you say. The problem for someone who wants to believe that fires brought down the towers is that the evidence, limited for reasons unknown, doesn't support the fire induced collapse theory.

Yes it does. Obfuscation does not change that fact.