Do we agree the towers were designed to withstand jetliner crash?

[JanH]

NIST noted that the methods for simulating the effects of an aircraft crash when the twin towers were built were inferor to modern methods.

"The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation."
​

 

[Non Believer]

Interesting that none of you choose to discuss John Skilling. He of course was the chief engineer on the trade towers. Here are some of his quotes. In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. Frank Demartini was the on site project manager for the WTC's, and an architect. So for those of you who claim he was not involved in the design process you are technically right, but considering his degree of involvement and his technical expertise it is absurd to discount his opinions out of hand. Here is a third expert opinion. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." . Also Robertson responds to questions just months before the attacks about whether the towers were designed to resist terrorist attacks, saying only that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. If he didn't believe that they would not have survived the resultant fire that would have been a good time to mention it. For those of you who compared the forces from 767s to those of the B-25 bomber your quite aways off from what were talking about. But perhaps I should have explained that Skillings group calculated for a fully loaded 707. Doctor Fungi claims that the calculation was based on a 707 with an air speed of 180 MPH. Clearly this is simply wrong. Skilling stated that the calculation was done with an assumed airspeed of 600 MPH. So in fact the calculation for force of impact for the 707 and 767 are virtually identical. If you want to delve further into the specifics that's fine. As for the fact that beyond the 1964 white paper there is no record of this work (according to the NIST investigation). how does that work in favor of the official story. In my opinion it casts doubt the other way since so many of the pertinent documents and evidence involved in 9-11 are missing. And finally in regard to the 99.9 percent assent of the ASCE membership to the official story, could you please give details on how the ASCE polls its membership ?

 

[twinstead]

Deleted post, because I just don't want to get involved in this thread...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ah, the goggles they do nothing! Paragraph breaks are your friend Non Believer.

 

[DavidJames]

People, is there a school that guys like this attend to learn these techniques? I'm beginning to think there is.

What you see is simply the difference between CT thinking and critical thinking. CT thinking is not methodical, structured or organized, it is stream of consciousness rambling. Based on what they believe is common sense and not facts or evidence.

 

[beachnut]

Interesting that none of you choose to discuss John Skilling. He of course was the chief engineer on the trade towers. Here are some of his quotes. In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. Frank Demartini was the on site project manager for the WTC's, and an architect. So for those of you who claim he was not involved in the design process you are technically right, but considering his degree of involvement and his technical expertise it is absurd to discount his opinions out of hand. Here is a third expert opinion. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." . Also Robertson responds to questions just months before the attacks about whether the towers were designed to resist terrorist attacks, saying only that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. If he didn't believe that they would not have survived the resultant fire that would have been a good time to mention it. For those of you who compared the forces from 767s to those of the B-25 bomber your quite aways off from what were talking about. But perhaps I should have explained that Skillings group calculated for a fully loaded 707. Doctor Fungi claims that the calculation was based on a 707 with an air speed of 180 MPH. Clearly this is simply wrong. Skilling stated that the calculation was done with an assumed airspeed of 600 MPH. So in fact the calculation for force of impact for the 707 and 767 are virtually identical. If you want to delve further into the specifics that's fine. As for the fact that beyond the 1964 white paper there is no record of this work (according to the NIST investigation). how does that work in favor of the official story. In my opinion it casts doubt the other way since so many of the pertinent documents and evidence involved in 9-11 are missing. And finally in regard to the 99.9 percent assent of the ASCE membership to the official story, could you please give details on how the ASCE polls its membership ?

The real engineer who did the work on the WTC said slow moving 707.

You are not a pilot, the 600 mph you mention is at altitude, not at approach speeds. The terrorist were speeding. As you saw the building did withstand the impact long enough to get most out of the building. Wow, it did withstand an aircraft impact. Did you miss out on something. But all you need to make your CT world complete is to find some explosives or you beam weapon. Fact would be neat, good luck finding them.

So you are just a CT nut case grabbing the nearest dumb idea.

 

[60hzxtl]

Forest - Trees

WTC 1 & 2 survived the impact(s).

Planes hit. Building stood. Then fires started. (instantly)


Empire State building? Steel frame. Masonry exterior. Built to fire code of the time.


Once more - the towers were designed to withstand jetliner crash.

Towers did withstand jetliner crash.

 

[beachnut]

Interesting that none of you choose to discuss John Skilling. He of course was the chief engineer on the trade towers. Here are some of his quotes. In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. Frank Demartini was the on site project manager for the WTC's, and an architect. So for those of you who claim he was not involved in the design process you are technically right, but considering his degree of involvement and his technical expertise it is absurd to discount his opinions out of hand. Here is a third expert opinion. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." . Also Robertson responds to questions just months before the attacks about whether the towers were designed to resist terrorist attacks, saying only that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. If he didn't believe that they would not have survived the resultant fire that would have been a good time to mention it. For those of you who compared the forces from 767s to those of the B-25 bomber your quite aways off from what were talking about. But perhaps I should have explained that Skillings group calculated for a fully loaded 707. Doctor Fungi claims that the calculation was based on a 707 with an air speed of 180 MPH. Clearly this is simply wrong. Skilling stated that the calculation was done with an assumed airspeed of 600 MPH. So in fact the calculation for force of impact for the 707 and 767 are virtually identical. If you want to delve further into the specifics that's fine. As for the fact that beyond the 1964 white paper there is no record of this work (according to the NIST investigation). how does that work in favor of the official story. In my opinion it casts doubt the other way since so many of the pertinent documents and evidence involved in 9-11 are missing. And finally in regard to the 99.9 percent assent of the ASCE membership to the official story, could you please give details on how the ASCE polls its membership ?

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all
of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

 

[Bubbers]

Interesting that none of you choose to discuss John Skilling. He of course was the chief engineer on the trade towers. Here are some of his quotes. In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. Frank Demartini was the on site project manager for the WTC's, and an architect. So for those of you who claim he was not involved in the design process you are technically right, but considering his degree of involvement and his technical expertise it is absurd to discount his opinions out of hand. Here is a third expert opinion. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." . Also Robertson responds to questions just months before the attacks about whether the towers were designed to resist terrorist attacks, saying only that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. If he didn't believe that they would not have survived the resultant fire that would have been a good time to mention it. For those of you who compared the forces from 767s to those of the B-25 bomber your quite aways off from what were talking about. But perhaps I should have explained that Skillings group calculated for a fully loaded 707. Doctor Fungi claims that the calculation was based on a 707 with an air speed of 180 MPH. Clearly this is simply wrong. Skilling stated that the calculation was done with an assumed airspeed of 600 MPH. So in fact the calculation for force of impact for the 707 and 767 are virtually identical. If you want to delve further into the specifics that's fine. As for the fact that beyond the 1964 white paper there is no record of this work (according to the NIST investigation). how does that work in favor of the official story. In my opinion it casts doubt the other way since so many of the pertinent documents and evidence involved in 9-11 are missing. And finally in regard to the 99.9 percent assent of the ASCE membership to the official story, could you please give details on how the ASCE polls its membership ?

You seem to be missing the fact that a 707 and a 767 are not the same thing. I don't see how it is so hard to understand the size difference of the two planes. Even if it was designed to withstand a 707 going 550+mph, you don't seem to grasp the concept of weight. Which is a difference of about 100 tons.

 

[beachnut]

You seem to be missing the fact that a 707 and a 767 are not the same thing. I don't see how it is so hard to understand the size difference of the two planes. Even if it was designed to withstand a 707 going 550+mph, you don't seem to grasp the concept of weight. Which is a difference of about 100 tons.

707 was heavier. It had 4 engines and had to carry more fuel because the engines were not as efficient. (had to carry more fuel to go places)

But the speed limit below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS. The design the real designer said it was a slow moving aircraft. The CT guys dig up the top speed at 30,000 feet of 600 mph.

The CT guys make up stories about super steel structures do not fail in fires.

It would be neat if this guy starting the thread would just state his ideas clearly and stop beating around asking silly questions.

 

[Kent1]

Interesting that none of you choose to discuss John Skilling. He of course was the chief engineer on the trade towers. Here are some of his quotes. In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. Frank Demartini was the on site project manager for the WTC's, and an architect. So for those of you who claim he was not involved in the design process you are technically right, but considering his degree of involvement and his technical expertise it is absurd to discount his opinions out of hand. Here is a third expert opinion. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." . Also Robertson responds to questions just months before the attacks about whether the towers were designed to resist terrorist attacks, saying only that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. If he didn't believe that they would not have survived the resultant fire that would have been a good time to mention it. For those of you who compared the forces from 767s to those of the B-25 bomber your quite aways off from what were talking about. But perhaps I should have explained that Skillings group calculated for a fully loaded 707. Doctor Fungi claims that the calculation was based on a 707 with an air speed of 180 MPH. Clearly this is simply wrong. Skilling stated that the calculation was done with an assumed airspeed of 600 MPH. So in fact the calculation for force of impact for the 707 and 767 are virtually identical. If you want to delve further into the specifics that's fine. As for the fact that beyond the 1964 white paper there is no record of this work (according to the NIST investigation). how does that work in favor of the official story. In my opinion it casts doubt the other way since so many of the pertinent documents and evidence involved in 9-11 are missing. And finally in regard to the 99.9 percent assent of the ASCE membership to the official story, could you please give details on how the ASCE polls its membership ?

Well here's what Swirsky said.

The towers were designed to survive a hit by a plane, but the aircraft that struck the towers Tuesday were much bigger and carried more fuel than airliners in use when they were built. Skilling is dead so we don't have his current comments.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.wtc.rebuild/index.html

 

[jujigatami]

I don't really have a problem with believing that the architects and engineers designed the buildings to withstand a jet plane hitting them.

It is said that they designed the towers for a 707 hit, fine, doesn't matter.

They used assumptions, and maybe, just maybe those assumptions were wrong.

Would the towers have survived a 707 hitting them, maybe, but I doubt it. I think the architects and engineers were just plain wrong. They used assumptions WRT speed and fuel capacity that maybe weren't applicable in real life. I mean, what are the odds that a fully fueled jetlier would hit at full speed? It wouldn't be the first time that someone overstated their capability.

So what?

I mean really, so what? CTers love to point out that the buildings were designed to withstand this or that. Maybe they were just wrong when they designed it.

 

[fuelair]

Speaking of dead, if we could loan the CTduhers some brains, maybe this kind of silliness would be dead. One can dream!

 

[Stankeye]

I don't really have a problem with believing that the architects and engineers designed the buildings to withstand a jet plane hitting them.

It is said that they designed the towers for a 707 hit, fine, doesn't matter.

They used assumptions, and maybe, just maybe those assumptions were wrong.

Would the towers have survived a 707 hitting them, maybe, but I doubt it. I think the architects and engineers were just plain wrong. They used assumptions WRT speed and fuel capacity that maybe weren't applicable in real life. I mean, what are the odds that a fully fueled jetlier would hit at full speed? It wouldn't be the first time that someone overstated their capability.

So what?

I mean really, so what? CTers love to point out that the buildings were designed to withstand this or that. Maybe they were just wrong when they designed it.

Exactly the tact I was thinking of taking. I was going to tell them to watch the show on History Channel called "Engineering Disasters" where dispite what the engineers designed for the damn things failed anyway.

Strange they can make a whole series out of engineering failures without a consipiracy.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Interesting that none of you choose to discuss John Skilling. He of course was the chief engineer on the trade towers. Here are some of his quotes. In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. Frank Demartini was the on site project manager for the WTC's, and an architect. So for those of you who claim he was not involved in the design process you are technically right, but considering his degree of involvement and his technical expertise it is absurd to discount his opinions out of hand. Here is a third expert opinion. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." . Also Robertson responds to questions just months before the attacks about whether the towers were designed to resist terrorist attacks, saying only that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. If he didn't believe that they would not have survived the resultant fire that would have been a good time to mention it. For those of you who compared the forces from 767s to those of the B-25 bomber your quite aways off from what were talking about. But perhaps I should have explained that Skillings group calculated for a fully loaded 707. Doctor Fungi claims that the calculation was based on a 707 with an air speed of 180 MPH. Clearly this is simply wrong. Skilling stated that the calculation was done with an assumed airspeed of 600 MPH. So in fact the calculation for force of impact for the 707 and 767 are virtually identical. If you want to delve further into the specifics that's fine. As for the fact that beyond the 1964 white paper there is no record of this work (according to the NIST investigation). how does that work in favor of the official story. In my opinion it casts doubt the other way since so many of the pertinent documents and evidence involved in 9-11 are missing. And finally in regard to the 99.9 percent assent of the ASCE membership to the official story, could you please give details on how the ASCE polls its membership ?

Paragraph breaks are your friend.

 

[uruk]

Calculations on paper never quite work out exactly in real life. There are too many variable in a chaotic system like a crash to be 100% accurate.

The engineers were limited to what they had to work with.
The buildings did survive the impact. It was the damage they were not totalty correct on.

The type of fire retardant and the method they used to apply it did not behave they way they though it would. I'm pulling a Chris here to reference the documentary from the discovery channel. "Anatony of a collapse" I think it was called. You can find it on Youtube. ( and if it's not there, you can blame it on the actions of the conspiracy nuts to destroy evidence that would disprove thier theories.)
And from Robertson's testimony posted in this thread, it seems they did not expect the fire to be so bad.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Non Believer -

Of COURSE they were designed to withstand airliner crashes. Each tower was designed to withstand the simultaneous hits of four - if you can believe this - SPACE PLANES traveling at Mach 3.75 - impacting all four faces of the tower. Boom-boom-boom-boom! It was a very forward-thinking group in 1964.

But they neglected the most obvious defensive building strategy. Godzilla. Who'd have thought that a Cretaceous tyrannosaur - fire-breathing to boot - could have arisen to do this? Sheathed in an invisibility cloak? Ya can't shoot what ya can't see. And ya can't build against what ya cannot imagine.

 

[Loss Leader]

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

So, a Boeing 707 doesn't go 600 miles per hour. The cruising speed is 550 mph (with some tricked-out prototypes nudging 612 mph). (source) The max cruising speed of the DC-8 was 588 mph. (source). So, I do not believe that anybody back in 1964 modeled a crash of either of these planes at 600 mph, a speed that (absent a controlled dive) was faster than either of those planes could go.

The designers worried about a lost pilot looking for a landing strip in the fog. He would have been going a lot slower than faster than the absolute fastest his plane could possibly go.

It is impossible that the designers were worried about a purposeful terrorist attack. First of all, prior to September 11, 2001, nobody was worried about terrorists using airplanes to attack civilian targets. Second of all, back in 1964, the only enemy anybody in the US cared about was the Soviets. And those guys had nuclear bombs.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Even if someone proved that the towers were designed to survive such an impact, this would disprove a conspiracy.

Conspirators trying to fool the world would not deliberately place a striking anomaly at the center of their plan. They would not want anything to draw undue attention to the event. So the idea would never have gotten past the planning stage.

Here's the scenario:
Conspirator 1: Let's make it look like airliners brought the towers down.
Conspirator 2 (viciously smacking Conspirator 1 upside the head): Don't be an idiot! People would wonder why the towers fell. They would research the matter, find out we staged an impossible event...and we'd be caught. We're trying to make it look real, not give the game away! AHHH! (Smacking stupid old Conspirator 1 upside the head a few more times.)

I realize the assertion has been debunked quite thoroughly in this thread. My point is that--even if we lay technical matters aside--the conspiracist scenario falls apart logically.

Roger that, Perry.

It's like dressing up E. Howard Hunt as a bum, putting him in Dealey Plaza and blowing away JFK.

Like we wouldn't recognize him later and topple the whole plot? True conspirators would use - geez - probably BUMS to play the bums.

By the way yer site is a friggin' riot. Somebody pointed me to it during my pitched battles with the CTs on another forum (hostile) and I've been laffin' ever since. Keep it up!

 

[apathoid]

.... And finally in regard to the 99.9 percent assent of the ASCE membership to the official story, could you please give details on how the ASCE polls its membership ?

OK, so I exaggerated. Skeptics are not immune from throwing out an occasional fallcy. But since I can't find but 2 structural/civil engineers(David Zuniga and James Pegelow?) who dispute the official findings - I can only think that there arent many. It could very well be that 99.9 % of the worlds civil engineering community agrees with the official story. Curiously, neither of these two gentlemen above have written a single word on the collapses. Can you, non believer, give me some more structural engineers who dipsute the collpases, preferably ones who've contributed to a peer-reviewed paper. Here are mine:


(The following list is far from exhaustive)

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

John E. Fernandez - Assistant Professor of Architecture - MIT
http://architecture.mit.edu/people/profiles/prfernan.html
Eduardo Kausel - Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
http://linc.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2330
Tomasz Wierzbicki - Professor Applied Mechanics - MIT
http://ctl.mit.edu/metadot/index.pl?id=249...ategory&op=show
Liang Xue - Graduate student Mechanical Engineering - MIT
Meg Hendry-Brogan - Graduate student Ocean Engineering - MIT
Ahmed F. Ghoniem - Professor of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
http://me.mit.edu/people/personal/ghoniem.htm
Oral Buyukozturk - Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2288&isa=Category&op=show
Franz-Josef Ulm - Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2381
Yossi Sheffi - Professor of Logistics and Engineering - MIT
http://web.mit.edu/sheffi/www/



http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/peopl...ple.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/...ademicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiad...iadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.