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

[Gravy]

The tower beams and columns were identifiable by markings in every case for the core columns. WHY did they only have two to test?

Cherry-picking NIST again, are you? I say that because you just cited NCSTAR 1-3, so I know you're aware of what's in it. Try reading 3C, which clearly explains the difficulties NIST had in identifying the as-built locations of the core columns it collected.

 

[Gravy]

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

Yes, indeed. A wonderful series by Ric Burns. They do a great job with Moses, and the final episode, two hours on the WTC, it excellent.

 

[MG1962]

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.

Not in the least - what you are suggesting is every designer wanting to put up a tall building needs to re-invent the wheel by studying the designs and working out what was good and what was bad.

And what would be learned anyway. The designs where 35 years old when the buildings came down. Any real structural lessons that could be learned had been long ago. Thats why the design concept for the Towers fell from favour among engineers. They simply found faster cheaper light stronger ways to do things

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

An even more complete explanation would provide the fact that the temperatures the pieces tested reached agree quite well with what the computer models say were the peak temperatures at those locations. In other words, the results seem to validate the computer models. And elsewhere those computer models say temperatures reached much higher ... in excess of 1000 C. By the way, computer fire models are the state of the art when estimating the peak temperatures in complex structures. They've been shown in case after case to do that quite well.

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.

Wrong. As I pointed out, the results of the steel sample tests agree reasonably well with the peak temperatures calculated by the fire code models for the locations where the steel samples came from before the collapse. This is pointed out in the NIST documents.

 

[lozenge124]

I am wondering why it is that the architectural plan views for the Twin Towers have become publicly available in the last several months, and NIST recently released SAP2000 column and (I presume) beam data, yet the actual construction drawings with details are not publicly available.

It is the construction drawings which would tell the whole story and allow us to determine how the collapse could continue. It would allow us to really have a good idea of the mass distribution and resistance, or lack of, to progressive collapse.

I hope they do become available in the near future as a lot of the arguments may get put to bed.

I agree, it's disgraceful, especially considering the publicly funded status of the WTC. The lack of blueprints also puts a spoke in the wheel of any independent FEA efforts, and attempts to verify the NIST SAP2000 model
.
I was surprised to read that even professionals closely involved with FEMA and NIST had trouble getting the information. Mr. Astaneh-Asl was closely involved with the initial FEMA WTC site survey:

His work examining steel near ground zero gave Mr. Astaneh-Asl a few short minutes of fame. He was interviewed on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, CNN, and National Public Radio, as well as by several newspapers, including The Chronicle. At the time, he stressed the positive aspects of the twin towers' performance on the day of the attacks, noting that the length of time the buildings stood allowed most occupants to escape.

Mr. Astaneh-Asl says that from his inspection of the steel, he decided the collapse was not due to faulty welding or poor workmanship. That meant he was still not sure exactly how the collapse happened.

Then he got a call from an analyst from MSC Software Corporation, which makes high-end computer-modeling software used by carmakers and other businesses. Company officials had seen the Berkeley professor quoted in the news media, and offered to donate the company's software for his efforts. He quickly took them up on their offer and began the next phase of his research.

Mr. Astaneh-Asl wanted the computer simulation to be as true to life as possible. That would require the blueprints and construction specifications for the twin towers.

"Basically you build the towers inside your computer with all the dimensions — you represent each element of your structure," he says. "It's really a virtual replica of your physical structure."

But the building plans for the towers turned out to be hard to come by, as the developers kept them sealed from public view. Experts say that most developers keep such documents private, viewing them as proprietary information, but Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he had hoped that, considering the circumstances, the plans would be made available to researchers.

He nearly got access by joining an investigation team led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which brought together some two dozen researchers and engineers in late 2001.

Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings' architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.

(The leader of that investigation, W. Gene Corley, says he believes the wording of the nondisclosure agreement would not have stopped any participant in the investigation from publishing academic papers about the structures. "It essentially said that we would not use information we obtained there to be used in a lawsuit against the owners and designers of the building," says Mr. Corley, who is senior vice president of the CTL Group, in Skokie, Ill.)

After the Berkeley professor had nearly lost hope of obtaining the blueprints, he was invited to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, in March of 2002, at a hearing titled "Learning From 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center."

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm

As to why this culture of secrecy, I guess aside from being driven by a general sense of public good, there is really not much incentive for people in positions of power (even within public institutions) to release and share information with the general public. In the blueprint case, Astaneh-Asl actually disagrees with NIST in that he feels the building designs were flawed in the first place. Keeping the plans as secret as possible diminishes the chances of lawsuits etc..

 

[HeyLeroy]

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 somehow doubt that any building can be designed to resist collapse after a one-acre, twenty-storey building gets dropped on it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wrong. As I pointed out, the results of the steel sample tests agree reasonably well with the peak temperatures calculated by the fire code models for the locations where the steel samples came from before the collapse. This is pointed out in the NIST documents.

Beach, please tell me how tests of two core columns which didn't see more than 250 degrees C helped the computer model to say there was then high enough steel temperatures to cause creep in the core.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I somehow doubt that any building can be designed to resist collapse after a one-acre, twenty-storey building gets dropped on it.

Do you have any idea what the impulse was or do you just think global collapse had to ensue?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cherry-picking NIST again, are you? I say that because you just cited NCSTAR 1-3, so I know you're aware of what's in it. Try reading 3C, which clearly explains the difficulties NIST had in identifying the as-built locations of the core columns it collected.

Your idea of cheery picking seems to be that when you tell me you bought a cadillac and I point out it is a volkswagon, you say it is a car isn't it. We all agree the twin towers collapsed. The problem is it didn't happen the way you or NIST say it did. The reasons for NIST to say what they are saying is more obvious than why you would be.

 

[Gravy]

Your idea of cheery picking seems to be that when you tell me you bought a cadillac and I point out it is a volkswagon, you say it is a car isn't it. We all agree the twin towers collapsed. The problem is it didn't happen the way you or NIST say it did. The reasons for NIST to say what they are saying is more obvious than why you would be.

Now it's time for another episode of "What the hell are you talking about?"

YOUR issue was NIST's collection and identification of core columns in as-built locations in fire afffected areas. I gave you the NIST report reference, and I assume that by now you've read it.

Now please address the issue.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Now it's time for another episode of "What the hell are you talking about?"

YOUR issue was NIST's collection and identification of core columns in as-built locations in fire afffected areas. I gave you the NIST report reference, and I assume that by now you've read it.

Now please address the issue.

There isn't much of an issue as they only did physical testing on two core columns and neither had experienced temperatures where they lost any strength. To claim that they then used this data to make the computer model realistic would be an episode for your "What the hell are you talking about?" It is completely insignificant. The real question is why did they only test two core columns? To say that no more were available without addressing why isn't an answer.

 

[BeAChooser]

Beach, please tell me how tests of two core columns which didn't see more than 250 degrees C helped the computer model to say there was then high enough steel temperatures to cause creep in the core.

That's BeAChooser. If you must shorten it, I suggest BAC.

And to answer your question, the tests didn't help the computer model "do" anything. What the tests did was at least partially validate the computer results because the computer model computed maximum temperatures in the locations where those samples came from that were in good agreement with what was measured via the tests.

NIST notes that the temperatures determined by metallographic analysis on both the exterior elements and core column samples they have are "consistent" with the impact/fire/thermal/structural models they developed. The samples tested from perimeter spandrels (for instance) didn't see temperatures over 625 C. But the reports note that the fire models calculate only 450 C in the spandrel locations. The two are "consistent".

And note that the core samples had fire proofing intact. Impact model results say that should be the case at those locations. NIST notes that the fire/thermal/structural model shows "no significant fires near" column 603 (one of the sample locations) and a peak temperature of about 100 C. It notes that column 605 (another sample location) in the model had "some surrounding fire" and peak temperatures of less than 200 C. And the paint analysis tests on those samples indicate less than 250 C for both column samples. Again, "consistent".

You need to understand that fire codes are based on physics we actually understand pretty well. The codes have been shown to produce results within 5-20% of measured values in many other fire problems. In this case, the models said the temperatures would have been much higher than 250 C in other locations. Here are some time slices from those models.

By the way, I sure hope you aren't trying to claim that fires can't get any hotter than 250 C in structures.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

BeAChooser;2798839]That's BeAChooser. If you must shorten it, I suggest BAC.

Will do.

By the way, I sure hope you aren't trying to claim that fires can't get any hotter than 250 C in structures.

Not at all. However, the temperature of the fire and the temperature of the steel are two very different things as large steel beams and columns have large thermal capacities and take a long time to heat up even if they aren't interconnected to other beams in the building. The twin tower steel had both advantages and would very likely not gotten anywhere near hot enough to lose enough strength to collapse.

The fact that only two samples were taken when so much more was available has to raise questions.

The fact that the model matched the measured actual temperatures of those columns does not have to be an indication of anything other than that the actual temperatures of those columns were used as an input to the model. The column temperatures were probably used to build the model so of course the model results have to match the actuals.

 

[Gravy]

There isn't much of an issue as they only did physical testing on two core columns and neither had experienced temperatures where they lost any strength. To claim that they then used this data to make the computer model realistic would be an episode for your "What the hell are you talking about?" It is completely insignificant.

The real question is why did they only test two core columns? To say that no more were available without addressing why isn't an answer.

Because it's the third time I've been through this nonsense with you.

If you had bothered to read the report I cited, you would have found out exactly why so few samples could be identified, you would know that NIST says such a sample IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND WAS NOT USED TO DETERMINE MODEL FIRE TEMPERATURES.

But rather than read the document I twice referred you to, you chose to ignore it, and because of that you made the same damn foolish assumptions as before. You have embarrassed yourself and insulted me.

Go away, you ridiculous waste of time.

 

[AZCat]

Not at all. However, the temperature of the fire and the temperature of the steel are two very different things as large steel beams and columns have large thermal capacities and take a long time to heat up even if they aren't interconnected to other beams in the building. The twin tower steel had both advantages and would very likely not gotten anywhere near hot enough to lose enough strength to collapse.

You wouldn't have happened to have calculated this, by any chance? In case you didn't know, it is typical to do this before making assertions about the behavior of nonlinear systems. In your response, please include a list of your assumptions, as I will want to verify your calculations independently.

 

[BeAChooser]

the temperature of the fire and the temperature of the steel are two very different things as large steel beams and columns have large thermal capacities and take a long time to heat up even if they aren't interconnected to other beams in the building. The twin tower steel had both advantages and would very likely not gotten anywhere near hot enough to lose enough strength to collapse.

And you base this conclusion on your own *expertise*? Or would like to cite an expert in steel and fire to give your claim weight?

And I have a three questions for you.

First of all, how much strength do you think the steel had to lose for a collapse to begin? At 600 C, the loss is 50%. If it were 1000 C, as the computer models suggest, the loss would be almost 90% of the initial maximum strength. So how much loss do you, as an *expert*, think was necessary for a collapse to begin. Keep in mind that the computer results indicate that temperatures exceeded 600C in large areas of the structure for much longer than 30 minutes and exceeded 950C in large areas for about 30 minutes. And some of these were areas where fireproofing was damaged.

Second, if the fires didn't get anywhere near hot enough to cause steel to lose much strength, what caused the floors to sag in the towers, as was observed? This sagging was a very important part of NIST's postulated collapse mechanism. It caused the outer columns to bend inward, creating a serious buckling instability in the structure. This happened well before the collapse. So if it wasn't fire that did this, what did? Bombs?

Finally, a molten substance was observed flowing out of the structure for a time prior to the collapse. What do you think this substance was and how hot did it have to be to make it molten?

The fact that the model matched the measured actual temperatures of those columns

I didn't say they matched. I said they were in reasonable agreement and NIST said they were consistent.

does not have to be an indication of anything other than that the actual temperatures of those columns were used as an input to the model.

So you believe the engineers at NIST who ran these models are part of this vast conspiracy. I'm curious how many total people you believe are part of the conspiracy at this point in time? Care to offer a guess?

And since you are such an *expert*, perhaps you can tell us how temperatures are "input" to the types of fire code models that were used. (This should be interesting as it will demonstrate how little understanding you actually have ...)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Because it's the third time I've been through this nonsense with you.

If you had bothered to read the report I cited, you would have found out exactly why so few samples could be identified, you would know that NIST says such a sample IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND WAS NOT USED TO DETERMINE MODEL FIRE TEMPERATURES.

But rather than read the document I twice referred you to, you chose to ignore it, and because of that you made the same damn foolish assumptions as before. You have embarrassed yourself and insulted me.

Go away, you ridiculous waste of time.

When you cite something like a 336 page chapter you should refer a person to a specific area. I do. You are either unaware that what you are asking is ridiculous or are disingenuous.

As for what I know from reading NISTNCSTAR1-3C it was the volunteers who did the steel recovery. That is unbelievable that in the most catastrophic building collapse in the history of the world in the most powerful country in the world that we had to depend on volunteers, who were being very nice to give up some of their time away from their regular activities. How quaint! It is ridiculous that volunteers would be depended on to do the recovery and anbody who is legitimate would know it.

You are using a circular argument. It wasn't statistically significant because they didn't test enough samples. Who chose not to test enough samples and why were volunteers used for the steel recovery? Don't act like I am the silly one here.

 

[A W Smith]

When you cite something like a 336 page chapter you should refer a person to a specific area. I do. You are either unaware that what you are asking is ridiculous or are disingenuous.

As for what I know from reading NISTNCSTAR1-3C it was the volunteers who did the steel recovery. That is unbelievable that in the most catastrophic building collapse in the history of the world in the most powerful country in the world that we had to depend on volunteers, who were being very nice to give up some of their time away from their regular activities. How quaint! It is ridiculous that volunteers would be depended on to do the recovery and anbody who is legitimate would know it.

You are using a circular argument. It wasn't statistically significant because they didn't test enough samples. Who chose not to test enough samples and why were volunteers used for the steel recovery? Don't act like I am the silly one here.

It was Australia's lend lease corporation who won the contract for the WTC site cleanup. not volunteers.

 

[Gravy]

When you cite something like a 336 page chapter you should refer a person to a specific area. I do. You are either unaware that what you are asking is ridiculous or are disingenuous.

Of course you're right. Even a competent mechanical engineer wouldn't be given a raging clue by this table of contents entry:

Chapter 4
Physical Damage of Core Elements (Columns and Channels)
4.1 Core Columns

• 4.1.1 Core Columns Located in Impact Region
• 4.1.2 Core Columns Located in Fire Region
• 4.1.3 Other Identified Core Columns
• 4.1.4 Unidentified Core Columns

As for what I know from reading NISTNCSTAR1-3C it was the volunteers who did the steel recovery. That is unbelievable that in the most catastrophic building collapse in the history of the world in the most powerful country in the world that we had to depend on volunteers, who were being very nice to give up some of their time away from their regular activities. How quaint! It is ridiculous that volunteers would be depended on to do the recovery and anbody who is legitimate would know it.

You mean the volunteer EXPERTS in structural engineering and failure? You mean the experts who volunteered their time because they believed it was important? First you accuse the paid engineers and scientists of corruption, and now you question the competence of some of the most experienced experts in the world who offered their help.

And do you know that paid FEMA and NIST study members also did steel inspection and recovery? How dare they, when people volunteered to do the same work!

Anyone else you'd like to add to your list o' ignorant indignation? How about the massage therapists in St. Paul's Chapel?

You are using a circular argument. It wasn't statistically significant because they didn't test enough samples. Who chose not to test enough samples and why were volunteers used for the steel recovery? Don't act like I am the silly one here.

Geez, I wonder where someone might find that information. Oh, well. I guess it'll always be a mystery.

 

[BeAChooser]

You mean the volunteer EXPERTS in structural engineering and failure? You mean the experts who volunteered their time because they believed it was important?

He means these guys:

And her:

(Their black NWO suits are under those street cloths. Good disguise! )