[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

If a Canadian nuclear reactor had a meltdown, I would want a full official (government) inquiry. As part of the inquiry I would expect the reactor designers to be consulted, but I would not want them on the investigating team writing the report.... would you?
 
So when NIST basically concluded that the design was partly responsible for the collapase, how it that not being critical of the design? They basically said the events exploited the design weakness.

How many buildings are being constructed with the same design used for the WTC?
 
Jonnyclueless:

Could you please show me where NIST state that the design of the towers was "partly responsible" for the collapse.
 
T.A.M. said:
Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Not a new allegation. there have been numerous conflit of interest claims ever since the 9/11 commision was formed. Remeber that the 9/11 CTs recycle old bs instead of introducing new evidence.
 
T.A.M. said:
Well a new conspiracy theory seems to be emerging, namely, some people are insinuating that conflict of interest may have existed, which in turn may have allowed for minimal focus on the building design and pre-attack status as factors in the collapse causation on 9/11.

However, let it be noted, that I do not hear in any of these allegations or insinuations, a suggestion of MIHOP/LIHOP....

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Indeed none of this has anything to do with the Cts concerning the plan to attack the towers whether it be that of hijackers or clandestine secret world gov'ts.

Instead it concerns the issue of the design and implementation of the design specs for these buildings. There is good evidence that the insulation was not up to standard for NYC or even for the PANYNJ codes. NIST is the organization that can and does make reccomendations concerning fire codes and did make some as a result of the 911 attacks. There are others they could have but did not make. There are issues, such as the difference between NYC and PANYNJ codes, that they barely acknowledged and others that they did not address at all. That is the topic at hand, not far fetched senarios of neo-con ventures.
 
Apollo20 said:
The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.
Click to expand...
I suggest that the above should be shifted from a discussion of "9/11" conspiracies to that of a discussion of "was there, or was there not, actions taken to minimize the liability of individuals whose involvement in the construction/maintenance of WTC may have facilitated the structural failure".

Yes, I admit, that's a long description; but I contend that this material is fundementally different from "9/11 conspiracies". It does not dispute the events of the attacks. It deals specifically with what failings, prior to the attacks, may have been covered-up or glossed-over after the fact.

I think it is a worthy topic of discussion, but I feel it would benefit from being divorced from "9/11 conspiracies".

My US$0.02 (or is that Amero$0.02 ?)
 
Apollo20,
I am just wondering if this is news to you or have you always suspected the integrity of the building. As I have mentioned to you previously, I follow your posts with great interest, and this one is most interesting. :)
 
Apollo20 said:
If a Canadian nuclear reactor had a meltdown, I would want a full official (government) inquiry. As part of the inquiry I would expect the reactor designers to be consulted, but I would not want them on the investigating team writing the report.... would you?
Click to expand...

I would not want them heading up the investigation, or have a majority of the investigators under their "influence" so to speak, no...with this we can agree. Do you feel this was the case with NIST??

TAM:)
 
jaydeehess said:
Indeed none of this has anything to do with the Cts concerning the plan to attack the towers whether it be that of hijackers or clandestine secret world gov'ts.

Instead it concerns the issue of the design and implementation of the design specs for these buildings. There is good evidence that the insulation was not up to standard for NYC or even for the PANYNJ codes. NIST is the organization that can and does make reccomendations concerning fire codes and did make some as a result of the 911 attacks. There are others they could have but did not make. There are issues, such as the difference between NYC and PANYNJ codes, that they barely acknowledged and others that they did not address at all. That is the topic at hand, not far fetched senarios of neo-con ventures.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and if there is enough legitimate evidence to warrant an investigation into this angle, I agree it should occur. My issue, perhaps linked to this, is the slippery slope the "truthers" will take, that will read along these lines...

"Well if they were willing to avoid investigating this aspect, or worse, hid information on this issue, what else did they hide...hmmm...hmmmm"

You know you can hear them now...hmmmm

TAM;)
 
Apollo20 said:
The information presented below was passed on to me by Professor Astaneh for which I thank him. Professor Astaneh was in fact invited to be on the original ASCE/FEMA study of the WTC attacks of 9/11 so he obviously knows his stuff! However, he withdrew when he saw the obvious conflict of interest embodied in some of the other memebers of the team:

Consider the names of two of the people who were on the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that produced the famous "Building Performance" Report.

Jon Magnusson and Saw -Teen See. Who are these people?

1. Jon Magnusson: He is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as Partner in
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc. He is actually one of the main
owners and managers of the firm Skilling, Barkshire Ward Magnusson,
which was called Skilling Helle Christiansen Robertson , and was the
firm that did the structural engineering and design of the WTC towers.

Having Jon Magnusson from Skilling on the team that is investigating the structure designed by his firm and has collapsed killing thousands of people is beyond belief.... You cannot be on the team paid by taxpayers to investigate why the buildings that you designed (or your firm had designed) collapsed.

2. Saw-Teen See: She is listed in the ASCE/FEMA report as the Managing Partner, Leslie E. Robertson and Associates, LLP. Of course Leslie E. Robertson was the structural engineer of record for the design of the towers. However, Saw-Teen See is not only the manager of Leslie E. Robertson and Associates , but she is also the wife of Leslie E. Robertson! So, the wife of the structural engineer who designed the WTC towers, who is also the head of the firm Leslie E. Robertson was on the team to investigate the design and performance of the WTC towers and why they failed!

No wonder when you read the ASCE/FEMA -403 Report, there is only praise
for the structural design of the WTC Towers.

As for the NIST report, the situation is no better. When NIST got the
funding to do the multi-million dollar WTC studies, the first contract for structural modeling and analysis was given to none other than Leslie E. Robertson's firm! So it's no wonder that the NIST Report has no criticisms of the WTC structural design. Nice, very nice! Moral corruption indeed!

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me having seen the same kind of nonsense while working for 23 years in the nuclear industry in Canada.
Click to expand...

There were 26 team members. Neither Magnusson or See were Chapter Leaders for the Report, and Magnusson was Chapter Author (one of 4, plus the Chapter Leader) for Chapter 1 only (the Introduction). See is not credited as Leader or Author for any Chapter.

The hysterics on this issue seem a mite overwrought...
 
Exactly...

Like I said, if the people in the project connected to the designers/engineers in the WTCs design/construction were of major influence or import on the report and investigation, than I think a case could be made to review the entire report for oversight or areas given minimal attention, but otherwise I think it is fair...I mean you want to have some input from those who knew the buildings the best.

TAM:)
 
hmmmmm!

Just joking. I do have a sense of humour and am willing to see how this topic develops. This at least sounds someway plausible.
 
Re: LERA's contract being the first

6.6.2 The Reference Models

Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software. ...These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 110 stories above grade and the six subterranean levels. The models included primary structural components in the towers, resulting in tens of thousands of computation elements. The data for these elements came from the original structrual drawing books for the towers. These had been updated through the completion of the buildings and also included most of the subsequent, significant alterations by both tenants and The Port Authority. LERA also developed reference models of a truss-framed floor, typical of those in the tenant spaces of the impact and fire regions of the buildings, and of a beam-framed floor, typical of the mechanical floors.

LERA's work was reviewed by independent experts in light of the firm's earlier involvement in the WTC design. It was that earlier work, in fact, that made LERA the only source that had the detailed knowledge of the design, construction, and intended behavior of the towers over their entire 38-year life span. The accuracy of the four models was checked in two ways:

* The two global models were checked by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), also under contract to NIST, and by NIST staff. This entailed ensuring consistency of the models with the design documents, and testing the models, for example, to ensure that the response of the models to gravity and wind loads was as intended and that the calculated stresses and deformations under these loads were reasonable.

* The global model of WTC 1 was used to calculate the natural vibration periods of the tower. These values were then compared to measurements from the towers on eight dates of winds ranging from 11.5 mph to 41 mph blowing from at least four different directions. As shown in Table 6-3, the N-S and E-W values agreed within 5 percent and the torsion values agreed within 6 percent, both within the combined uncertainty in the measurements and calculations.

* SOM and NIST staff also checked the two floor models for accuracy. These reviews involved comparison with simple hand calculations of estimated deflections and member stresses for a simply supported composite truss and beam under gravity loading. For the composite truss sections, the steel stress results wer ewithin 4 percent of those calculated by SAP2000 for the long-span truss and within 3 percent for the short-span truss. Deflections for the beams and trusses matched hand calculations to within 5 percent to 15 percent. These differences were within the combined uncertainty of the methods.

The few discrepancies between the developed models and the original design documents, as well as the areas identified by NIST and SOM as needing modification, were corrected by LERA and approved by NIST. The models then served as reference for more detailed models for aircraft impact damage analysis and for thermal-structural response and collapse initiation analysis.
Click to expand...
 
I think that both Astineh and Quintiere are making the same point. The NIST avoided making a statement that thev towers could have beren better designed and that there were things discovered in the course of investigation that would have allowed a stronger, more resistant design. This would, of course, neccessitate that any new construction must take these factors into cxonsideration, and that any revisions to the building code should include measures addressing these concerns. It is in this area that politics may have entered the mix.

Tougher building codes are just not very Republican, or at least not a bloody bit neo-con.
 
WildCat said:
Are you seriously claiming that Republicans and neo-cons write the building codes for New York City?
Click to expand...

In Chicago, the trades unions wield enormous influence on what gets written into the building codes.

I've always heard that the Big Apple building codes are quite unique. In the A/E world, it's said that if you can get through dealing with the codes in Chicago and NYC, everywhere else is a walk through the park.
 
Is that Bruce or Pickering? Cuz my cottage is by Douglas Point and I'd want answers, but Pickering, forget about it.
 
jaydeehess said:
It really seems that some of you are against this idea only because Apollo20 is for it.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Augustine said:
There were 26 team members. Neither Magnusson or See were Chapter Leaders for the Report, and Magnusson was Chapter Author (one of 4, plus the Chapter Leader) for Chapter 1 only (the Introduction). See is not credited as Leader or Author for any Chapter.

The hysterics on this issue seem a mite overwrought...
Click to expand...

So they had very little control over the report anyways. Personally I would WANT people involved in the designing to be on the team because they'd likely have knowledge about the way the buildings would react and why certain things were done that outsiders wouldn't have. As long as the leadership of the group was independant and wasn't overly swayed by those few team members, I don't see any issues. Once more it seems that Apollo 20 is making mountains out of mole hills.
 
Crungy said:
I've always heard that the Big Apple building codes are quite unique. In the A/E world, it's said that if you can get through dealing with the codes in Chicago and NYC, everywhere else is a walk through the park.
Click to expand...
And it's even worse when the inspectors are complete idiots who know nothing of building construction and instead get their jobs because they're somebody's somebody. I saw a porch violation today where the inspector claimed the ledger board wasn't bolted to the wall. Problem is, the porch used lookouts and not ledger boards, what the idiot building inspector was calling a ledger board was simply the joist closest to the wall. No ledger boards at all on that porch!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom