[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

[Apollo20]

I e-mailed this to Prof. Astaneh this afternoon:

Dear Professor Astaneh,

I was very pleased to read about your new findings on the causes of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 as recently reported on the internet.

I am not a civil engineer - I am a retired scientist - but I have researched the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, in some detail and I have come to the conclusion that the Twin Towers were doomed from the moment that they were struck by the aircraft.

I further believe that it is unacceptable that the original 1960s calculations, claiming to show that the buildings could survive aircraft impacts, are not available to researchers and subject to intense scrutiny. Professor Astaneh, if you are now saying that the Twin Towers could not have survived such impacts, why would any qualified engineer ever claim that they could?

I also believe that the NIST and FEMA Reports were mainly intended to protect the American construction industry and the designers of the WTC from any criticism and culpability for the catastrophic failures of WTC 1 & 2. Therefore I am not surprised that a proper scientific investigation, such as the one you have been undertaking for the past 5 years, would contradict the NIST and FEMA Reports and reveal the true cause(s) of the tragedy that unfolded in New York City on 9/11.

It is most regrettable that no legal actions or lawsuits associated with 9/11 have been able to make any headway in the face of the government’s position that 19 Arab jihadists were solely responsible for all the death and destruction of 9/11. That an extreme act of terror occurred in New York City on 9/11 is not in doubt. But the fact that the target buildings should have totally succumbed as they did with the loss of almost 3000 lives, needs to be investigated. If the towers were not “up to code”, and a well-designed structure could have survived the aircraft strikes, the American public has a right to know and steps should be taken to ensure that skyscrapers are better designed in the future.

In conclusion, Professor Astaneh, let me add that regardless of how the great 9/11 debate plays-out in the months ahead, I salute your tenacity and courage in speaking out at this time on this very important issue and I hope that your work leads to a reappraisal of the 9/11 tragedy.

Sincerely.....

 

[PhantomWolf]

I further believe that it is unacceptable that the original 1960s calculations, claiming to show that the buildings could survive aircraft impacts, are not available to researchers and subject to intense scrutiny. Professor Astaneh, if you are now saying that the Twin Towers could not have survived such impacts, why would any qualified engineer ever claim that they could?

I'd point out that the towers clearly -did- survive the impacts, else they would have fallen down immediately.

Looking at the reports of what he said, I'd be interested to know why he thinks that thicker exterior beams and concrete about the stairwells would have prevented the building collapsing, the fires, which were the main cause of the collapse, still would have pulling in the exterior columns, though it may have taken longer for them to give out. Concrete about the stairwell might have helped protect thoise inside, but I doubt they would have held up the buildings.

I also can't find where he critizes NIST or FEMA, but rather he is critizing the civil-engineering industry's and ASCE for how the buildings were designed.

Astaneh sharply criticized the American Society of Civil Engineers, which he said cared more about defending the industry than revealing the truth about the towers' design.

From what I have found his bone seems to be with the design of the towers, not the investigation into their collapse.

 

[Totovader]

...

I also can't find where he critizes NIST or FEMA, but rather he is critizing the civil-engineering industry's and ASCE for how the buildings were designed.

From what I have found his bone seems to be with the design of the towers, not the investigation into their collapse.

Exactly- the title of this thread is patently false.

 

[R.Mackey]

Do you have a link to a whitepaper or publication?

All I know of is his annual lecture (announcement and abstract can be found here).

I also add parenthetically that I am on the record as criticizing NIST. There isn't a shred of doubt remaining about its core conclusion, namely that impact + fire led to the collapses, but I consider recommendations for future building code still up for debate. See Arup, etc.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you have a link to a whitepaper or publication?

Yes I noticed that Apollo 20 didn't provide any information. This is where I found mine.

Reading through your linkie to (eta: the advert for) his speech now.

 

[Apollo20]

I have had a very interesting response from Prof. Astaneh... He most assuredly criticizes NIST ... for who it contracted some of the structural modeling work to for example.

Conflict of interest I would say!

I guess moral corruption IS everywhere...

 

[Myriad]

I also can't find where he critizes NIST or FEMA, but rather he is critizing the civil-engineering industry's and ASCE for how the buildings were designed.
From what I have found his bone seems to be with the design of the towers, not the investigation into their collapse.

Exactly- the title of this thread is patently false.

I'm willing to give Apollo20 the benefit of the doubt on this one. If the buildings were inadequately designed, and NIST did not point this out (whether or not the design shorcomings were directly relevant to the cause of collapse), then this would seem to at least imply criticism of NIST for the omission.

There's some ambiguity here because "criticism of NIST" may mean criticism of the NCSTAR conclusions, or it may mean criticism of something else about NIST such as how they conducted the investigation, and the two are not interchangeable.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Apollo20]

Did anyone see the 1968 movie ROSEMARY'S BABY?

It kind-of reminds me of how NIST & FEMA operated during the WTC investigations...

And who is Saw-Teen See anyway?

 

[WildCat]

I further believe that it is unacceptable that the original 1960s calculations, claiming to show that the buildings could survive aircraft impacts, are not available to researchers and subject to intense scrutiny.

NIST could not find any evidence such calculations even exist, what makes you think they do? Have you found eveidence of such calculations?

I also believe that the NIST and FEMA Reports were mainly intended to protect the American construction industry and the designers of the WTC from any criticism and culpability for the catastrophic failures of WTC 1 & 2.

Wow, you think architects, engineers, and builders should be liable for not making a building that could withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet doing 500 mph? In my mind, that's akin to GM being sued because their car could not withstand the impact of a 70 mph freight train.

 

[R.Mackey]

Did anyone see the 1968 movie ROSEMARY'S BABY?

It kind-of reminds me of how NIST & FEMA operated during the WTC investigations...

And who is Saw-Teen See anyway?

I think that's my cue to exit.

If anyone finds a written position from the esteemed Professor Astaneh-Asl, please send me a PM. I'd be interested in reading it, and might even agree with what he has to say.

Baiting, however, not so interesting.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm willing to give Apollo20 the benefit of the doubt on this one. If the buildings were inadequately designed, and NIST did not point this out (whether or not the design shorcomings were directly relevant to the cause of collapse), then this would seem to at least imply criticism of NIST for the omission.

Personally I'm not, from what little I can find on Prof. Astaneh, even from his own website (which doesn't seem to have been updated lately), his main concerns seem to be about the fact that the building wasn't build to a certain standard that might have survived better under the plane attacks. The Buildings weren't build to be hit by a plane, and as Wildcat says, blaming the engineers that initially built them for that fact is like blaming the car manufactor for the damage that results from thier product being run over by a tank. The buildings were safe for what they were intended for and it is only through hindsight that we know they performed poorly otherwise.

It seems to me to be faulty logic to blame people for things that could not be forseen, and I see no reason for NIST or FEMA to place blame on the engineers or designers for not factoring in someone flying a 767 into the building at top speed.

 

[cmcaulif]

His study sounds quite similar to this one by Hoo Fat et all:

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Who also find that increasing the thickness of the exterior columns can prevent the wings from penetrating the building.

 

[WildCat]

I also have my doubts that, even if the buildings did not collapse, anyone above the impact floors could have survived. The firemen couldn't get up, and the trapped people couldn't get down. The death toll would have been roughly the same, less the firefighters killed in the collapse.

 

[Apollo20]

The missing aircraft impact calculation is just one point I made to Prof. Astaneh. But if you are not interested in discussing the CORRUPTION angle of who worked on the NIST and FEMA Reports, well, fine... continue in your NISTIAN dream world...talking to each other .... I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway .... I just thought some more open-minded folks out there might want to consider what Prof. Astaneh is saying...

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well if you actually have solid evidence of corruption, go for it, if you're just planning to throw about mud and speculation and hope something sticks, then I don't see the point

 

[A W Smith]

two questions

1) If the towers were built using a conventional bay or grid skeleton system instead of the tube and core design, Would they have withstood the initial impact? (I think not)


2) should skyscrapers built today be designed to withstand attacks from an entity and/or technology 30 years into the future?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I also have my doubts that, even if the buildings did not collapse, anyone above the impact floors could have survived. The firemen couldn't get up, and the trapped people couldn't get down. The death toll would have been roughly the same, less the firefighters killed in the collapse.

Some might have if they'd found the right stairwells. Not all of the stairwells were blocked, but only a few people discovered that. Of course if some twerp hadn't decided after '93 that there was the possiblity of roof access by terrorists and so locked the fire door access to the roof and placed spikes all over it to prevent helicopters landing, they might have gotten some off that way too, assuming that the pilots were willing to risk it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

two questions

1) If the towers were built using a conventional bay or grid skeleton system instead of the tube and core design, Would they have withstood the initial impact? (I think not)

From what I understand, one of the main reasons that they weren't, was that because of the size, it simply wasn't possible to build buildings using the standard beam and column bays that were in use at the time. The weight of the steel would have meant that the lower floors would have had to have been solid.

 

[R.Mackey]

Some might have if they'd found the right stairwells. Not all of the stairwells were blocked, but only a few people discovered that. Of course if some twerp hadn't decided after '93 that there was the possiblity of roof access by terrorists and so locked the fire door access to the roof and placed spikes all over it to prevent helicopters landing, they might have gotten some off that way too, assuming that the pilots were willing to risk it.

Eighteen people descended from the upper floors of WTC 2, as the off-center impact nearly spared Stairway A. No one from the upper floors of WTC 1 survived, if I remember correctly.

The heat of the fires would have made helicopter rescue impossible. The helicopters on-scene noticed immediate excessive EGT (exhaust-gas temperature sensor) readings in their turbines when they got close, even without hovering, as they would have had to do to rescue anyone. The decision to discourage rooftop rescue was correct, but it's unfortunate that not everyone understood that.

Now I'm really gone. Let me know when it's out on pay-per-view.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

This:

I am a retired scientist...

does not go with this:

...But if you are not interested in discussing the CORRUPTION angle of who worked on the NIST and FEMA Reports, well, fine... continue in your NISTIAN dream world...talking to each other .... I have better things to do than debate JREFers anyway .... I just thought some more open-minded folks out there might want to consider what Prof. Astaneh is saying...