Why aren't the WTC tower construction drawings publicly available?

[Tony Szamboti]

I am wondering why it is that the architectural plan views for the Twin Towers have become publicly available in the last several months, and NIST recently released SAP2000 column and (I presume) beam data, yet the actual construction drawings with details are not publicly available.

It is the construction drawings which would tell the whole story and allow us to determine how the collapse could continue. It would allow us to really have a good idea of the mass distribution and resistance, or lack of, to progressive collapse.

I hope they do become available in the near future as a lot of the arguments may get put to bed.

 

[WildCat]

Because the plans for a building are the property of the architect/s who designed it.

There have been floor plans released via leak recently, but these ae not actual blueprints for the buildings.

If you have trouble understanding why a building isn't designed to survive a 20 story building falling on top of it you should really ponder why you wasted your education.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Then why isn't the formula for Coca-Cola publicly available? Or the source code to Photoshop?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why the wise guy replies? I guess you guys understood it all right off. It is all so obvious right?

Answer this question wise guys (meaning Jonnyclueless and Wildcat). If you have the same volume of water vapor laden air and completely dry air at the same temperature which is heavier?

 

[kookbreaker]

Why the wise guy reply?

You were given the right answer. And it was one that most people would arrive at with more than a few moments of thought. Why is it that a small minority of people think that company property is to be distributed at will?

 

[rwguinn]

Why the wise guy reply?

Because wise-guy questions deserve wise-guy responses.
Because we have been through this several times-as YOU are well aware...
The US Constitution does not permit the confiscation of property, real or intellectual, without due process---and a pressing public necessity. That is an AND in there, not an OR.

 

[GT/CS]

Shouldn't the City of New York have copies of the plans for permitting purposes and wouldn't they be part of the public record, available for anyone to review?

 

[mortimer]

It's not like the twoofers have anyone qualified to "analyze" the blueprints anyway.

 

[AZCat]

Shouldn't the City of New York have copies of the plans for permitting purposes and wouldn't they be part of the public record, available for anyone to review?

Not necessarily. City governments are not required to keep copies of building plans on file - they do it as a service. Plans are not kept that long anyway - I think five years is typical.

 

[AZCat]

You wouldn't want the construction drawings anyway. They don't include modifications made after the CDs were released (although they might incorporate some revisions). You want the as-builts, and typically only one copy of those is kept - at the building itself (for convenience).

 

[rwguinn]

Shouldn't the City of New York have copies of the plans for permitting purposes and wouldn't they be part of the public record, available for anyone to review?

Yep. They likely have copies for inspection and compliance.
Nope.
The

government
cannot
release

propriatary

information

without

permission.

Was that slow enough for you to catch it?

You people have absolutely no clues at all, do you?
GIMME GIMME GIMME IWANTIT IFIDONTGETITIWILLPOOPOOONYOU~!seems to be your attitude.
Get a life, get an education

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Shouldn't the City of New York have copies of the plans for permitting purposes and wouldn't they be part of the public record, available for anyone to review?

I have understood that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned them. They are a public entity and should make them available since the WTC buildings no longer exist and security would not be an issue. Larry Silverstein only leased the buildings and would not retain any permanent rights to the drawings, so they would not be strictly in private hands as some above have stated. The proprietary issue could be a drawback but I believe that would only be if the designers insisted on it as it seems like many skyscrapers used the open floor design after it was done on the twin towers.

 

[AZCat]

I have understood that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned them. They are a public entity and should make them available since the WTC buildings no longer exist and security would not be an issue. Larry Silverstein only leased the buildings and would not retain any permanent rights to the drawings, so they would not be strictly in private hands as some above have stated.

They are not owned by the property owners. The creators of the documents are the owners, and they are the professionals whose seal and signature appear on them. The documents are copyrighted, so while the property owners have fair use of them, they cannot publish them without the consent of the controllers of the copyright. Whether or not the buildings in question were publicly owned has no effect on the documents themselves.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Not necessarily. City governments are not required to keep copies of building plans on file - they do it as a service. Plans are not kept that long anyway - I think five years is typical.

I would be very surprised if that were true, especially considering the magnitude of buildings such as the towers. I know that the registrar of deeds of my municipality has the deed and survey of every existing property within its borders. In fact every township I ever lived in did.

 

[Alareth]

Lets change the question a bit from why haven't they been released to the public, why should they?

Honestly, there is no reason for them to be released to the general public. A small minority with some crackpot ideas that have no relation to reality is insufficient reason to do so.

 

[AZCat]

I would be very surprised if that were true, especially considering the magnitude of buildings such as the towers. I know that the registrar of deeds of my municipality has the deed and survey of every existing property within its borders. In fact every township I ever lived in did.

That's because deed & survey != building plans.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

They are not owned by the property owners. The creators of the documents are the owners, and they are the professionals whose seal and signature appear on them. The documents are copyrighted, so while the property owners have fair use of them, they cannot publish them without the consent of the controllers of the copyright. Whether or not the buildings in question were publicly owned has no effect on the documents themselves.

So you are saying that in this case it is the designers of the buildings who are the only people who could give consent to publicly release them. I do know in my work (aerospace) that there are situations where the government owns the drawings and can have others build from them. I believe it depends on the contract between the buyer and the designer. Do you know for a fact that the designers retained rights to the drawings in this case?

 

[Triterope]

I am wondering why it is that the architectural plan views for the Twin Towers have become publicly available in the last several months

What, exactly, do you think these contain that isn't readily available elsewhere? I don't understand the mechanics of building collapse and don't pretend to, but it seems to me that the necessary information -- mass, weight, building composition and whatnot -- exists in enough other places to do the calculations.

I hope they do become available in the near future as a lot of the arguments may get put to bed.

Bullcrap. If you lot were given these drawings tomorrow, you'd just find something else to complain you haven't been given.

As if, somewhere in the voluminous New York City library, there's a World Trade Center schematic with the words "INSERT THERMITE HERE" written on it, in Wile E. Coyote's handwriting.

 

[MarkyX]

Wait, realcddeal is suggesting that the government should be forcing private citizens and companies to give up copyright material for the public?

Isn't this one of the very foundations of fascism? No private ownership?

 

[AZCat]

So you are saying that in this case it is the designers of the buildings who are the only people who could give consent to publicly release them. I do know in my work (aerospace) that there are situations where the government owns the drawings and can have others build from them. I believe it depends on the contract between the buyer and the designer. Do you know for a fact that the designers retained rights to the drawings in this case?

It is similar in the building industry. In fact, when a project goes out to bid copies of the drawings are made available to potential bidders. The building owner does not "own" the drawings, though - they just have the right to release copies of them in cases where "fair use" is applicable. They do not get to publish them - that right remains with the copyright holders.

If I am going to do design work on an existing building, it is within the rights of the building owner to release copies of the drawings to me. If I am a government entity who is checking the drawings for permitting purposes, the building owner can give me copies of the drawings. If I am a contractor, I can (and most certainly will) get copies of the drawings. The building owner can do all these things under "fair use".