[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

jaydeehess said:
Simply put I have no problem with reviewing fire codes for very tall structures and if using a different insulation and requiring wider, better protected stairwells is shown to be in order then let's change the codes.

It is fact that the PANYNJ had more lax codes than NYC. If that was done solely to make construction less expensive then that is reprehensible.

It really seems that some of you are against this idea only because Apollo20 is for it.

That is not critical thinikng IMHO.
Click to expand...

Have you any idea just how much design capabilities and materials, fastening, joining, and fabrication sciences have changed in the past 40 years?
Do you have any idea just how much our understanding of systems and interactions have changed in the past 45 years?
Are you aware that there is (likely) as much computing power in your house right now as existed on the whole damn planet 45 years ago?
20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. But those guys did the whole design on what would, by today's standards, be considered a bunch of coctail napkins. Sure, there are mountains of documentation. But simulations were on the very close order of F=mA, and s=M*c/I. All done by hand.
If we knew then what we know today, things would have been done differently. Blaming the engineers and engineering firms for "omissions" is quite like the "Pointy haired boss" saying: "I need a list of all unforseen problems and their solutions by noon"
I think they did a helluva job designing and building those buildings. As was pointed out, when they were built, Sprinklers weren't even part of the code!
 
PhantomWolf said:
Personally I don't care who brought it to the table, to me it smacks of 20/20 hindsight blaming those that made the decisions 40 years ago and trying to shift the responsibility from the attackers to the building designers. The buildings were not built to handle 767's slamming into them at 500mph, they were built to handle the winds and hold people as an office building. Yes I am sure there were a lot of things that could have been done better, and some times may have been skimped on to save money, but at the same time saying that certain things should have been done, not because they would have made the buildings safer for everyday use, but because it might have helped them survive a unimaginable event (especially in the 1960's) and because they didn't they should be blamed for building an unsafe building is totally rediculous.
Click to expand...

Just fixed that for you because you know that some twoofer will glom on to your inadvertent omission of the word "not" to suggest that you meant the exact opposite of what you actually meant.
 
LashL said:
Just fixed that for you because you know that some twoofer will glom on to your inadvertent omission of the word "not" to suggest that you meant the exact opposite of what you actually meant.
Click to expand...

heh, thanks. If I had a $1 for everytime I accidently left out the "not" or "n't" in a post and reversed what I was actually saying, I'd be even richer. ;)
 
[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]“The impact did nothing,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said, pointing to a massive interior column from the south tower that he believes remained standing even after three-quarters of it was sliced away by a jet part.
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif][...]

“The airplane did not do much damage,” he said, showing bolts and fasteners that suggest to him the towers were well designed and well constructed.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299[/FONT]
 
TC329 said:
[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]“The impact did nothing,” [/FONT]
Click to expand...
Oh...the WTC were made of a top secret government alloy that absorbed the kinetic energy from the impact yet had nothing happen? If you really think that a quote taken literally while being ripped out of context is anything more than an indication of your extreme dishonesty and immaturity you really are nuts.
 
Last edited:
TC329 said:
[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]“The impact did nothing,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said, pointing to a massive interior column from the south tower that he believes remained standing even after three-quarters of it was sliced away by a jet part.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif][...][/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]“The airplane did not do much damage,” he said, showing bolts and fasteners that suggest to him the towers were well designed and well constructed.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif][URL="http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299"]http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299[/FONT][/URL]
Click to expand...

From the same source, with my bolding:

A structural engineer examining the twisted bones of the World Trade Center said Friday he has tentatively concluded the towers collapsed because of intense fires fanned by jet fuel.
Click to expand...

A few comments on the above piece of blatant quote mining:

(1) Clearly the comment "The impact did nothing" is obviously not meant literally, otherwise three-quarters of the column referred to would not have been "sliced away by a jet part".

(2) This was written on the 7th October 2001. Has it occurred to you that some further investigation might have taken place since then that would have resulted in a different set of conclusions? For example, the FEMA and NIST studies?

(3) If you actually read the article, rather than quote mining, it clearly suggests a collapse due to impact damage and fire, and doesn't for one moment suggest that any further damage would be necessary.

(4) Since these quotes pre-date the NIST enquiry, they can hardly be said to disagree with its conclusions.

Still, congratulations on finding something to muddy the waters slightly. I'm sure that the more confusion you spread, the quicker everyone will arrive at the Truth[tm].

Dave
 
rwguinn said:
Have you any idea just how much design capabilities and materials, fastening, joining, and fabrication sciences have changed in the past 40 years?
Do you have any idea just how much our understanding of systems and interactions have changed in the past 45 years?
Are you aware that there is (likely) as much computing power in your house right now as existed on the whole damn planet 45 years ago?
20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. But those guys did the whole design on what would, by today's standards, be considered a bunch of coctail napkins. Sure, there are mountains of documentation. But simulations were on the very close order of F=mA, and s=M*c/I. All done by hand.
If we knew then what we know today, things would have been done differently. Blaming the engineers and engineering firms for "omissions" is quite like the "Pointy haired boss" saying: "I need a list of all unforseen problems and their solutions by noon"
I think they did a helluva job designing and building those buildings. As was pointed out, when they were built, Sprinklers weren't even part of the code!
Click to expand...

The most basic point is that things do change and that because of that codes should be reviewed and updated to take those changes into account.
If a code is changed there are two parts to that change. Future construction and retrofit of existing buildings. Obviously it would be next to impossible to enclose the entire stairwell of an existing building in concrete walls. Cost would also have to play a part in consideration of a retrofit order, obviously.

I fail to understand the strident reluctance exhibited by some to even consider a review and possible updating to new standards, the fire codes for tall structures.

The fact that engineering and computing power has changed over the last decades is a moot point if at the time of construction the WTC buildings only had to conform to a less stringent code than was , at that time, in place for NYC. Implementing measures not required by code is commendable but if the passive fire protection was less than required for a building two blocks north do we call it even? After the bomb blast in '93 (?) reccomendations were made and implemented due to problems seen at that time. These were listed above by another poster, for eg. fans to keep stairwells free of smoke, and barriers to prevent smoke in one tower from entering the other one. In the case of 9/11 there was a problem that the stairwells could not survive even modest damage and could not protect the occupants of the stairwells from fire on the floor for long. That is a situation that could be encountered again even without a bloody great aircraft ramming the building.
The long trusses sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward due to the heat. This is also a situation that could be encountered again even without 10,000 gallons of liquid accellerant being used.

Does it not make sense to take the effect on the towers and examine if it teaches any lessons , and most importantly, if there are lessons to be learned from this, to implement change? To not even consider doing so is reminiscent of the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

..................


,,,, and now I see that TC has come by to derail this thread completely away from the OP with his brand of quote mining and moronic mis-statements.
 
jaydeehess said:
The most basic point is that things do change and that because of that codes should be reviewed and updated to take those changes into account.
If a code is changed there are two parts to that change. Future construction and retrofit of existing buildings. Obviously it would be next to impossible to enclose the entire stairwell of an existing building in concrete walls. Cost would also have to play a part in consideration of a retrofit order, obviously.

I fail to understand the strident reluctance exhibited by some to even consider a review and possible updating to new standards, the fire codes for tall structures.

The fact that engineering and computing power has changed over the last decades is a moot point if at the time of construction the WTC buildings only had to conform to a less stringent code than was , at that time, in place for NYC. Implementing measures not required by code is commendable but if the passive fire protection was less than required for a building two blocks north do we call it even? After the bomb blast in '93 (?) reccomendations were made and implemented due to problems seen at that time. These were listed above by another poster, for eg. fans to keep stairwells free of smoke, and barriers to prevent smoke in one tower from entering the other one. In the case of 9/11 there was a problem that the stairwells could not survive even modest damage and could not protect the occupants of the stairwells from fire on the floor for long. That is a situation that could be encountered again even without a bloody great aircraft ramming the building.
The long trusses sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward due to the heat. This is also a situation that could be encountered again even without 10,000 gallons of liquid accellerant being used.

Does it not make sense to take the effect on the towers and examine if it teaches any lessons , and most importantly, if there are lessons to be learned from this, to implement change? To not even consider doing so is reminiscent of the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

..................


,,,, and now I see that TC has come by to derail this thread completely away from the OP with his brand of quote mining and moronic mis-statements.
Click to expand...

Please don't get the impression that I am disagreeing with you on the updating of Codes and practices & procedures. These must be upgraded, as we learn more.
The problem with the WTCs destruction was not code violation--I firmly believe that the insulation on the steel could not have prevented the collapse in any case, simply for the reasons previously stated--a combination of removal by collision and other factors. The codes need revision with the advent of new materials and/or methods. But retrofitting and entire building is certainly not practical, or even possible.
Most places have a "If you touch it, you upgrade it" regulation wrt remodeling: If you touch the plumbing/electrical/HVAC/structure to move or modify it it, the whole system must be brought up to current code. I can see that applying to a single floor at most of a building of WTC 1 and 2's size...
It is the "Engineers are corrupt and should have known better" BS from Apollo20 and the rest of the woo-woo crowd that caused the rant. Engineers didn't build the thing--they designed it. Politics built the thing--between the inspectors, unions, individual workers, and all the other people that get involved and wanted a piece of the pie.
Engineering is pretty much defined by "doing the best possible with the tools and materials you have". And they didn't have the tools back then.
 
jaydeehess:

No point RGUING with a NISTIAN JREF engineer

because there is no way to argue with someone who wants to defend the indefensible.
 
Apollo20= Devils Advocate. Indefensible? Is that really the word you were looking for?
 
Apollo20 said:
jaydeehess:

No point RGUING with a NISTIAN JREF engineer

because there is no way to argue with someone who wants to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

There isn't a lot of point in arguing with someone that bases their entire believe on susposition, speculation and conjecture either. Apollo 20, I am serious disappointed in your posting here. On chemisty you have a wonderful grasp of science and how to apply it, your posts are well thought out, meaningfull, and well supported with evidence and references. When you get away from that you go loopy though. You treat suspicions as fact, you throw mud and hope it sticks, you flame, and you pout when things don't go your way, basically you start acting like a petulent child. It's almost as if you have mutliple personalities, one that is the brilliant chemist and one that is a raving CT. I truely find it hard to mesh these two things and understand the way you have acted on this board. I really hope that you manage to figure it out yourself and instead of throwing away the analytical mind you use with your chemistry when you leave that subject, treat all things you post here the same as you do that science.
 
"RGUING" is a clever play on words, clever at the expense of a pretty well respected JREF'er. "NISTIAN engineer" is some sort of Freudian association with NIST and the obvious symbolism of the two largest buildings ever erected in the US. So says me.
 
3bodyproblem said:
"RGUING" is a clever play on words, clever at the expense of a pretty well respected JREF'er. "NISTIAN engineer" is some sort of Freudian association with NIST and the obvious symbolism of the two largest buildings ever erected in the US. So says me.
Click to expand...
Hell-
I think its funny.
 
PhantomWolf said:
There isn't a lot of point in arguing with someone that bases their entire believe on susposition, speculation and conjecture either. Apollo 20, I am serious disappointed in your posting here. On chemisty you have a wonderful grasp of science and how to apply it, your posts are well thought out, meaningfull, and well supported with evidence and references. When you get away from that you go loopy though. You treat suspicions as fact, you throw mud and hope it sticks, you flame, and you pout when things don't go your way, basically you start acting like a petulent child. It's almost as if you have mutliple personalities, one that is the brilliant chemist and one that is a raving CT. I truely find it hard to mesh these two things and understand the way you have acted on this board. I really hope that you manage to figure it out yourself and instead of throwing away the analytical mind you use with your chemistry when you leave that subject, treat all things you post here the same as you do that science.
Click to expand...


I have a theory on this. I will have to go through the posting history to prove or disprove this theory, but I believe that the posts Apollo20 makes on this forum vary based on the current phase on the moon. The first and fourth quarter are fine, but the second and third are right out. In other words, his posting style is that of a were-woo.
 
Oh it's funny, that's one thing that seems to be consistent, the funny. It's just poingnant the targets he picks in the process, that's all I was pointing out.
 
Hokulele: I don't have the ability to quote properly on this computer, but that last post of yours was funny as well. I think you just coined a term as well. were-woo? Now that's clever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom