[Moderated]Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

[~enigma~]

A20 is an intelligent but eccentric man who suffers fools badly. This is compounded by what appears to be a belief of his, that the great and vast majority of all persons are fools. Further complicating matters is his occassional venture into his own foolishness, which of course he cannot recognize as such.

In the matter at hand in this thread however, I believe he is correct (not including his editorial comment on "JREFer's")

Well all I can say is regardless of ANYTHING the guy has to say about anything. His condescending, combative and woo tendencies make me and I am sure many others not care one iota about anything he says.

 

[jaydeehess]

What if...
The WTC towers has four elevator shafts at each corner, all the people above the fire floors may have gotten out.

What if...
A system for evacuation from the roof had been developed and but into use?

And while we prepare for a similar attack, the terrorist will be planing a poison gas attack.

How safe are the ventilation systems in these buildings? Do we need a system to detect dangerous gasses and a system to clear any from buildings?

It goes beyond terror attacks and planes into buildings at 500 MPH.
Just evacuating a building with tens of thousands of people in them needs to be made more efficient and failing that at least design the structure to better maintain integrity in a multi floor major fire.

Other countries have implemented codes that address such things. It is ironic that 911 would be used to argue against them.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well all I can say is regardless of ANYTHING the guy has to say about anything. His condescending, combative and woo tendencies make me and I am sure many others not care one iota about anything he says.

I dislike the man too.

I also dislike GWB. (actually I would rather spend a month in purgatory than an hour with him) That does not mean that I will side with the CT's or dismiss everything he has to say out of hand.

 

[jaydeehess]

When I read A20's posts I try to separate the shinola he paints with, from the feces he throws.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It goes beyond terror attacks and planes into buildings at 500 MPH.
Just evacuating a building with tens of thousands of people in them needs to be made more efficient and failing that at least design the structure to better maintain integrity in a multi floor major fire.

The fire protection systems worked fine in 1975 when they had a major fire, and sprinklers were added after that. The fact of the matter is that no-one envisioned a situation where multiple stairways and lifts would be taken out of action making it very difficult to evacuate and the fire protection and sprinkler system would would be destroyed allowing the fire to go unchecked. Having said that after 1993 evacuation procedures and system were reviewed and emergency lighting and smoke extractors addd to the stairwells. The disaster of 9/11 was beyond the scope of anyone imagination, let alone those that designed the plave in the 60's.

Other countries have implemented codes that address such things. It is ironic that 911 would be used to argue against them.

The building met the codes it needed too, and its systems were able to handle normal situations. Having a plane smash into it at 500 mph is not a normal situation.

 

[einsteen]

Wasn't it

Impact Damage AND Jet Fuel Fire AND Fireproofing stripped ?

And probably some unknown factors. The Boolean AND operator has the advantage that you only need to change one of the factors in contrast with the OR operator.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wasn't it

Impact Damage AND Jet Fuel Fire AND Fireproofing stripped ?

And probably some unknown factors. The Boolean AND operator has the advantage that you only need to change one of the factors in contrast with the OR operator.

Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

From a CTs point of view, you'd be better off supporting NIST because that gives you the Fireproofing to moan about, if the others are right then it doesn't matter how much fire-proofing was damaged, they were coming down regardless.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

I think the role of the jet fuel as an accelerant is fairly important to the collapse initiation mechanism as well; the truther claim that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire can be countered by pointing out that no previous high-rise contents fire has been so quickly spread by the presence of an accelerant. So the heirarchy of increasingly complex required causes becomes:

Impact damage AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire (Quintiere, Astaneh, Arup, Greening)

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire (NIST)

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire AND explosives (truth movement)

Video manipulation AND explosives to simulate aircraft impact AND incendiaries to spread fires AND impossible energy beams from space (batcrap crazy)

Dave

 

[PhantomWolf]

Impact damage AND fireproofing loss AND jet fuel accelerant AND contents fire AND explosives (truth movement)

I think it's closer to:

Minor Impact damage AND small jet fuel fires AND some sort of combination of explosives and therm*te (truth movement)

 

[notheist]

Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy

Asbestos fibers in the air and rubble following the collapse of the World Trade Center is adding to fears in the aftermath of Tuesday’s terrorist attack. The true tragedy in the asbestos story, though, is the lives that might have been saved but for 1970s-era hysteria about asbestos.

Until 30 years ago, asbestos was added to flame-retardant sprays used to insulate steel building materials, particularly floor supports. The insulation was intended to delay the steel from melting in the case of fire by up to four hours.

In the case of the World Trade Center, emergency plans called for this four-hour window to be used to evacuate the building while helicopters sprayed to put out the fire and evacuated persons from the roof.

The use of asbestos ceased in the 1970s following reports of asbestos workers becoming ill from high exposures to asbestos fibers. The Mt. Sinai School of Medicine’s Irving Selikoff had reported that asbestos workers had higher rates of lung cancer and other diseases. Selikoff then played a key role in the campaign to halt the use of asbestos in construction.

In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64th floor of the World Trade Center towers.

Other materials were substituted for asbestos. Though the substitute sprays passed Underwriters Laboratories’ tests, not everyone was convinced they would work as well.

One skeptic was the late-Herbert Levine who invented spray fireproofing with wet asbestos in the late-1940s. Levine’s invention involved a combination of asbestos with mineral wool and made commonplace the construction of large steel framed buildings.

Previously, buildings such as the Empire State Building had to have their steel framework insulated with concrete, a much more expensive insulator that was more difficult to use.

Levine’s company, Asbestospray, was familiar with the World Trade Center construction, but failed to get the contract for spraying insulation in the World Trade Center. Levine frequently would say that “if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down.”

That appears to be what happened Tuesday, according to Richard Wilson, a risk expert and physics professor at Harvard University.

The two hijacked airliners crashed into floors 96 to 103 of One World Trade Center and floors 87 to 93 of Two World Trade Center. Instead of the steel girders of the towers lasting up to four hours before melting, the steel frames of One World Trade Center lasted only one hour and forty minutes, while the steel frames of Two World Trade Center lasted just 56 minutes before collapsing.

Though many were able to escape during those times, thousands apparently were not, including the hundreds of firefighters and police killed when the buildings suddenly and prematurely collapsed.

Selikoff was certainly right to point out that some workers heavily exposed to certain types of asbestos fibers were at increased risk of disease. But Selikoff was wrong to press the panic button about any use of or exposure to asbestos. For example, no adverse health effect has ever been attributed to Levine’s technique of spraying wet asbestos, according to Harvard’s Wilson.

We may now be paying a horrible price for junk science-fueled asbestos hysteria.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of the upcoming book Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy

I know it smacks of ad hominem, but if Steven Milloy said the sky was blue, I'd seriously consider the possibility it might be green.

Dave

 

[rwguinn]

Except that most of those that contest NIST's views are saying that the damage to the Fireproof wasn't necessary. In otherwords while NIST is saying that it was Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire AND Fireproofing stripped, people like Dr Quintiere, Prof. Astaneh and Arup etc are all saying that it should just be Impact Damage AND Office Material Fuelled Fire.

From a CTs point of view, you'd be better off supporting NIST because that gives you the Fireproofing to moan about, if the others are right then it doesn't matter how much fire-proofing was damaged, they were coming down regardless.

I think one of the things that makes the fireproofing issue moot is the fact that the impact damage included loss of the automatic fire suppression system through the loss of structural integrety and loss of power to the affected floors.
Also, faced with that inferno initiated by the Jet-A, any normal office fire supression system would be be like a squirt gun at a bonfire...
As for Apollo20--When he talks Chemistry, I'll listen. That is something he knows.
When he goes into politics, engineering, and sociology--he's just a woo-ish as Avery, Lyte, and their ilk.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The one issue that seems to be overlooked was that the original sprayed on fireproofing appears to have been substandard in design, formulation and application.

The mafia connection to this has never been fully explored to my knowlege.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I think one of the things that makes the fireproofing issue moot is the fact that the impact damage included loss of the automatic fire suppression system through the loss of structural integrety and loss of power to the affected floors.

The buildings were not designed with sprinkler systems. They were a retofit in the mid-late 70's.

 

[rwguinn]

The buildings were not designed with sprinkler systems. They were a retofit in the mid-late 70's.

I missed that part of the post. Back to reading the whole thing, not just the most recent replies. Sorry 'bout that.
That makes prior performance even more impressive.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Speaking of Fire Proofing.

Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives
Friday , September 14, 2001
By Steven Milloy
.[/I]

I disagree. Most of the problems with the fireproofing in the building had little to do with the presence of asbestos or not. True, the formula used in most of the structures did not include asbestos, and as such, it was a new formulation by the manufacturer that was devised as a substitute. This, however, does not alleviate that fact that the material was formulated to be applied under specific conditions and controls that were not apparently followed.

There were a number of issues with the fireproofing. One was that the specified thickness may not have been adequate. Weather this was a result of a cost benefit analysis, or a misapplication of codes and formulas, or just a general lack of understanding going all the way to the manufacturer is not really clear to me.

Delays in the initial construction caused the columns and trusses stored outside to rust. Rusty scale on the steel was not cleaned off prior to the installation of the fireproofing. This caused extensive problems later with fireproofing coming loose in huge sheets. Rain during construction often washed the exposed fireproofing from the steel. Fireproofing is installed wet. It needs to dry out thoroughly after application.

After a building floor is sealed off, the other trades come in to hang pipes, conduits, ceilings, etc. All of these activities involve the intentional removal of fireproofing from the parts of the structure that the component will be hung from. This is supposed to be repaired afterward, but in practice it rarely is.

Inspections of the fireproofing in the 90’s indicated that based on all of the above factors, the fireproofing in the building was definitely sub par. Even if asbestos containing fireproofing was used, the problems would have still been there.

This is an issue that has never been fully explored and probably won't ever be.

 

[Apollo20]

The real 9/11 Conspiracy:

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.

 

[slyjoe]

Does this mean you have a problem with Boeing being involved in the investigation of airplane crashes?

 

[T.A.M.]

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