WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

Do you want a copy via e-mail?

.

I don't really see the point. Without the full program of assumptions and inputs (that you used) are they not just pretty pictures?

Besides, I'm not an engineer. If you want me to present them to an SE (I use often), I believe he will want the whole package.
 
I know you are a moderator here and while I have your attention would like to know why the below post of mine was moved.

1) I don't know what post you're referring to as you haven't linked it;
2) Reposting something that was moved by a Mod is a bad idea - you should resolve the matter in the appropriate venue first;
3) If you want to ask about moderation issues, either PM a Mod or ask in the FMF sub-forum rather than going off-topic in threads in other sections.
 
And oh, what the heck. Date and publication of these statements too, please.

Re: ASCE and their structural engineering sub-group, the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) ...

Being the astute observer that you are regarding all thing engineering-related, I am certain that you realize that the ASCE was co-author of the FEMA Building Performance Report, upon which NIST built its case. In fact, on the ASCE website (asce.org), they exercise a bit of well-deserved vanity by invariably referring to this as the ASCE/FEMA BPR.

In fact, from Gene Corley's (Lead Structural Engineer of both the ASCE/FEMA & NIST reports) testimony before Congress:

Gene Corley said:
At the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NIST conducted a comparison and analysis of the current building and fire codes of New York City with national codes, and we contributed to the Army Corps of Engineers' study of the structural and fire damage to the Pentagon. In addition, NIST experts participated in the initial assessment of the collapse conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Coalition that comprised a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) funded by FEMA. The ASCE Coalition Team also included professional members of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). NIST is lending its expertise in structural disasters to ASCE and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to store WTC steel at its Gaithersburg, MD, headquarters for further scientific study.

Perhaps you're not aware of the significance of "contributing to the report" has with respect to "agreeing with that report's conclusions".

In case that's too hard for you to figure out, I can tell you that I've been asked on a couple of occasions during my career to sign my name to a report whose conclusions I felt were incorrect or unsubstantiated. My solution was easy: "Nope, I'm not signing." Pretty much every engineer I know would do the same thing in the same circumstances.
___

ASCE support for NIST report:

Civil Engineers Comment on NIST WTC Report Recommendations
http://www.coprinstitute.org/PressRelease.aspx?id=6655

NIST: World Trade Center Building 7 is First Known Case of a Tall Building Collapsing ’Primarily’ from Fire
by Robert L. Reid, (Senior Editor, Civil Engineering Magazine, ASCE World Headquarters)
cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?167804
___

From SEAoNY's web page, support for NIST & the NIST report


03.13.07: WTC 7 Collapse Study, by Ramon Gilsanz
http://www.seaony.org/programs/event_details.php?id=74

Structural Response of the WTC Towers to Aircraft Impact Damage and Fire
Dr. Mehdi Zarghamee, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Principal, Head of Engineering Mechanics and Infrastructure Division,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.


plus about 40 other papers, seminars, presentations:
http://tinyurl.com/8l2eybx

Go to SEAoNY's website.
Search for the words: "controlled demolition"
Since I know that this would be asking too much of you, I've done it for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22controlled+demolition%22+site%3Awww.seaony.org
"no results"

How about "thermite"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q="thermite"+site:www.seaony.org
"thermite site:www.seaony.org - did not match any documents."

____

And, just as a freebie, a SUPERB reference & overview on the last decade of building design, how the events of 9/11 have changed the design of tall buildings, from the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CtBUH):

Special Edition, World Trade Center: Ten Years On
https://store.ctbuh.org/PDF_Previews/Journal/CTBUHJournal_2011-3.pdf


I fully expect you to simply ignore all of this information. To go away & not reply.

Ignoring facts is simply your unique way of "searching for Da Twoof".
 
Last edited:
Re: ASCE and their structural engineering sub-group, the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) ...

Being the astute observer that you are regarding all thing engineering-related, I am certain that you realize that the ASCE was co-author of the FEMA Building Performance Report, upon which NIST built its case. In fact, on the ASCE website (asce.org), they exercise a bit of well-deserved vanity by invariably referring to this as the ASCE/FEMA BPR.

In fact, from Gene Corley's (Lead Structural Engineer of both the ASCE/FEMA & NIST reports) testimony before Congress:



Perhaps you're not aware of the significance of "contributing to the report" has with respect to "agreeing with that report's conclusions".

In case that's too hard for you to figure out, I can tell you that I've been asked on a couple of occasions during my career to sign my name to a report whose conclusions I felt were incorrect or unsubstantiated. My solution was easy: "Nope, I'm not signing." Pretty much every engineer I know would do the same thing in the same circumstances.
___

ASCE support for NIST report:

Civil Engineers Comment on NIST WTC Report Recommendations
http://www.coprinstitute.org/PressRelease.aspx?id=6655

NIST: World Trade Center Building 7 is First Known Case of a Tall Building Collapsing ’Primarily’ from Fire
by Robert L. Reid, (Senior Editor, Civil Engineering Magazine, ASCE World Headquarters)
cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?167804
___

From SEAoNY's web page, support for NIST & the NIST report


03.13.07: WTC 7 Collapse Study, by Ramon Gilsanz
http://www.seaony.org/programs/event_details.php?id=74

Structural Response of the WTC Towers to Aircraft Impact Damage and Fire
Dr. Mehdi Zarghamee, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Principal, Head of Engineering Mechanics and Infrastructure Division,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.


plus about 40 other papers, seminars, presentations:
http://tinyurl.com/8l2eybx

Go to SEAoNY's website.
Search for the words: "controlled demolition"
Since I know that this would be asking too much of you, I've done it for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22controlled+demolition%22+site%3Awww.seaony.org
"no results"

How about "thermite"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q="thermite"+site:www.seaony.org
"thermite site:www.seaony.org - did not match any documents."

____

And, just as a freebie, a SUPERB reference & overview on the last decade of building design, how the events of 9/11 have changed the design of tall buildings, from the Council on Tall Buildings & Urban Habitat (CtBUH):

Special Edition, World Trade Center: Ten Years On
https://store.ctbuh.org/PDF_Previews/Journal/CTBUHJournal_2011-3.pdf


I fully expect you to simply ignore all of this information. To go away & not reply.

Ignoring facts is simply your unique way of "searching for Da Twoof".

The only building codes changes since 911 have been enlarged and additional stairwells and luminescent lighting for them, sprinkler redundancy, and SFRM inspection. There have been no building code changes relevant to the alleged collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports. Actions speak much louder than words, so in essence the structural recommendations of the reports (which is what is relevant to this discussion) were ignored.
 
Last edited:
The only building codes changes since 911 have been enlarged and additional stairwells and luminescent lighting for them, sprinkler redundancy, and SFRM inspection. There have been no building code changes relevant to the alleged collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports. Actions speak much louder than words, so in essence the structural recommendations of the reports (which is what is relevant to this discussion) were ignored.

You are in the bad habit of splitting out tiny segments of hairs that are "significant" only to quacks & amateurs.

Getting back to the big picture:

Do you assert that the SEAoNY or ASCE reject NIST's conclusions regarding the cause of the collapse of either tower or WTC7?

In YOUR interpretation of SEAoNY and/or ASCE's opinions on the collapse of any of those buildings, do "explosives", "thermite" or "controlled demolitions" play any role?

If so, please feel free to present your evidence.

That is what is relevant to this discussion.
 
Last edited:
The only building codes changes since 911 have been enlarged and additional stairwells and luminescent lighting for them, sprinkler redundancy, and SFRM inspection. There have been no building code changes relevant to the alleged collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports. Actions speak much louder than words, so in essence the structural recommendations of the reports (which is what is relevant to this discussion) were ignored.

It's not about saving the buildings, it's about saving lives...
 
Tony,

I am certain that you've been asked this before, Tony, but I don't recall seeing your answer.

You claim that someone went from floor to floor, setting fires in WTC7 after WTC1 had collapsed. Presumably, several hours after WTC1 collapse, since this is the focus of your speculative "the fires we didn't see" nonsense.

In you imagination, to what purpose did this person set these fires??

We all agree that it is unlikely in the extreme that someone could have foreseen the fires resulting in the collapse of the building. It took NIST a long time, and a lot of analysis, to come to that conclusion.

What was this "fireman" attempting to accomplish by setting the building on fire?
 
From this post



Tried to make it easier for you to find the url ...

I'll get the other one ... whenever I feel like it.


Heh.


Re: ASCE and their structural engineering sub-group, the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) ...

Being the astute observer that you are regarding all thing engineering-related, I am certain that you realize that the ASCE was co-author of the FEMA Building Performance Report, upon which NIST built its case. In fact, on the ASCE website (asce.org), they exercise a bit of well-deserved vanity by invariably referring to this as the ASCE/FEMA BPR.

In fact, from Gene Corley's (Lead Structural Engineer of both the ASCE/FEMA & NIST reports) testimony before Congress: ...



Perhaps you're not aware of the significance of "contributing to the report" has with respect to "agreeing with that report's conclusions".


Lol. So in other words, no such quotes exist. Not from Astaneh, not from ASCE or SEoNY, not from AIA.

Well, I guess we can all see the rigor and honesty with which you present the "facts", eh, tfk?

That's pretty bad, tfk, even for you. :D
 
Last edited:
Tony,

In you imagination, to what purpose did this person set these fires??

It's an interesting paradox, and one that no Truther here has acknowledged. Their thinking goes like this (working backwards) -

The building has been rigged for CD and will be brought down on 9/11.
If it just goes *splat* for no plausible reason then everybody will go "wtf???" and investigate the occurrence to death.
Therefore a plausible reason for the collapse has to be introduced.
This reason (or cover-story, as it were) is extensive fire.
So, to make totally sure, skilled arsonists enter WTC7 and set suitable fires.
The building burns, is demolished by CD, and much later NIST is either fooled into believing this story or are active in the conspiracy.

What could possibly go wrong with this cunning plan? :D

About a hundred things, but one obvious one is that WTC7 doesn't get hit by significant WTC1 debris, there is no reason for fires to start, and the cover-story immediately fails. Another is that the fires are spotted and extinguished. Yet another would be prior or subsequent discovery of the CD gear. And so on and so on ...

But the real killer is that every one of the many objections to the CD plan is totally simple and totally predictable. Sherlock Holmes not required here. So nobody would be damn fool enough to instigate it.

And the hilarious part is that there is no possible benefit to the CD that couldn't be accomplished by everyday, inconspicuous means.
 
The only building codes changes since 911 have been enlarged and additional stairwells and luminescent lighting for them, sprinkler redundancy, and SFRM inspection. There have been no building code changes relevant to the alleged collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports. Actions speak much louder than words, so in essence the structural recommendations of the reports (which is what is relevant to this discussion) were ignored.

Another example of conspiracy-generated subjective confirmation- biased error.
I have bolded the structural-fire resistance changes relevant to the collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports that have already been implemented as well as Additional Proposed Changes to U.S. Model Building and Fire Codes Based on Recommendations from NIST's WTC Towers Investigationthat were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended.

Safer Buildings Are Goal of New Code Changes Based on Recommendations from NIST World Trade Center Investigation
For Immediate Release: October 1, 2008
Contact: Michael E. Newman
(301) 975-3025
GAITHERSBURG, Md.—Future buildings—especially tall structures—should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall thanks to 23 major and far-reaching building and fire code changes approved recently by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The recommendations were part of NIST's investigation of the collapses of New York City's World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001. The changes, adopted at the ICC hearings held Sept. 15-21, 2008, in Minneapolis, Minn., will be incorporated into the 2009 edition of the ICC's I-Codes (specifically the International Building Code, or IBC, and the International Fire Code, or IFC), a state-of-the-art model code used as the basis for building and fire regulations promulgated and enforced by U.S. state and local jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions have the option of incorporating some or all of the code's provisions but generally adopt most provisions.

"We applaud this historic action by the ICC—and the tremendous effort by NIST and its WTC investigation team that led to it," said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. "The lessons learned from the tragic events of 9/11 have yielded stronger building and fire codes for a new generation of safer, more robust buildings across the nation."
"These code changes are the result of a strong commitment to public safety by the nation's building and fire safety officials, private sector professionals and the fire service," said Shyam Sunder, lead WTC investigator for NIST. "The improvements that they will ensure will be of lasting value to our society."

The new codes address areas such as increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings; increasing the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises; strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as "fireproofing"); improving the reliability of active fire protection systems (such as automatic sprinklers); requiring a new class of robust elevators for access by emergency responders in lieu of an additional stairway; making exit path markings more prevalent and more visible; and ensuring effective coverage throughout a building for emergency responder radio communications.

Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.
These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, mandating the use of a nationally accepted standard for conducting wind tunnel tests (routinely used for determining wind loads in the design of tall buildings), limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors in stairways, installing stairway communication and monitoring systems on specific floors of tall buildings, and requiring risk assessments for buildings with substantial hazard (such as buildings more than 420 feet high with occupant loads exceeding 5,000 persons).

Summaries of the approved changes and unapproved proposals accompany this news release while detailed lists, along with a chart tracking the progress toward implementing all of the NIST WTC recommendations, may be found at http://wtc.nist.gov.

The leadership provided by the ICC's Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism Resistant Buildings, its Code Technology Committee and the U.S. General Services Administration were key to achieving the code changes. The proposals were developed and refined on the basis of feedback provided by building and fire code experts convened by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) with support from NIST.

"NIST remains strongly committed to continuing our work with these groups toward implementing additional changes to codes and standards based on our WTC recommendations," Sunder said. "That effort also will include the recommendations from the recently completed NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC Building 7, as well as amending the unapproved proposals based on recommendations from the NIST WTC towers investigation for possible adoption during the next revision cycle for the I-Codes."

As a non-regulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

Changes to U.S. Model Building and Fire Codes
Based on Recommendations from NIST's WTC Towers Investigation
Approved at the Final Action Hearings of the International Code Council
Minneapolis, Minn., Sept. 15-21, 2008

The following are the 23 model building and fire code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations now required by the I-Codes (changes displayed in italics are ones that were approved at previous ICC hearings and incorporated at the Minneapolis hearing into the 2009 I-Codes):

An additional (third) exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high.

An increase of 50 percent in the width of exit stairways in new sprinklered buildings.

Permitting the use of elevators for occupant evacuation in fires and other emergencies for all buildings, and as an alternative to the required additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high. Passenger elevators must meet specific criteria to be used for evacuation purposes.

Hardening of exit stairway and passageway enclosures, and elevator shaft enclosures, in buildings—for all buildings more than 420 feet high, for buildings 75-420 feet high where failure of the enclosure would substantially jeopardize human life, and in essential facilities such as hospitals.

Separating exit stairway enclosures by a distance not less than 30 feet or not less than one-fourth of the maximum building diagonal, whichever is less. For example, a building with a 50-foot by 50-foot floor plan would have a diagonal of about 70 feet. One-fourth of 70 is 17.5 feet, which would be the minimum distance required between exits (since it is less than 30 feet).

A minimum of one fire service access elevator for buildings more than 120 feet high.

Fire service access elevator lobby sizes that are a minimum of 150 square feet in area with sides at least 8 feet long.

Keeping fire service access elevator lobbies free of storage.

Greater reliability of sprinklers with a minimum of two water supply risers for each sprinkler zone in buildings more than 420 feet high. Each riser is required to supply sprinklers on alternate floors and will be placed in remotely located stair enclosures.

Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures

A one-hour increase in the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings more than 420 feet high.

Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.

Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

Increasing bond strength for fireproofing to nearly three times greater than currently required for buildings 75-420 feet high and seven times greater for buildings more than 420 feet high.

Field installation requirements for fireproofing to ensure that:
installation complies with the manufacturer's instructions;
the substrates (surfaces being fireproofed) are clean and free of any condition that prevents adhesion;
testing is conducted to demonstrate that required adhesion is maintained for primed, painted or encapsulated steel surfaces; and
the finished condition of the installed fireproofing, upon complete drying or curing, does not exhibit cracks, voids, spalls, delamination or any exposure of the substrate.

Special field inspections of fireproofing to ensure that its as-installed thickness, density and bond strength meet specified requirements and that a bonding agent is applied when the bond strength is less than required due to the effect of a primed, painted or encapsulated steel surface. The inspections are to be performed after the rough installation of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, sprinkler and ceiling systems.

Luminous markings delineating the exit path (including vertical exit enclosures and passageways) in buildings more than 75 feet high to facilitate rapid egress and full building evacuation.

Broadening the use of luminous markings to identify obstacles, exit doors, exit signs and floor numbers in the exit path in buildings more than 75 feet high.

Luminous exit path markings in existing buildings more than 75 feet high with the exception of open, unenclosed stairs in historic buildings.

Increasing the area of the Fire Command Center (the area from which all fire department operations are directed and usually housing the control panel for alarms, sprinklers, etc.) from 96 square feet to 200 square feet with at least one side 10 feet long in buildings more than 75 feet high.

Approved radio coverage for all buildings for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage level of public safety communications systems at the exterior of the building. Approved coverage includes specific requirements for signal strength, system design, installation and maintenance.

Installing an emergency responder radio communications system to provide the required level of radio coverage throughout a building. Typical hardwired communications systems would be replaced.

Additional Proposed Changes to U.S. Model Building and Fire Codes
Based on Recommendations from NIST's WTC Towers Investigation
The following are the nine model building and fire code change proposals consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended:

Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.

Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

Requiring a risk assessment and acceptable mitigation of risks for buildings more than 420 feet high with an occupant load greater than 5,000; for buildings with an occupant load greater than 10,000; and for buildings determined to be at higher than normal risk.

Requiring use of a new standard for conducting wind tunnel testing.

Requiring installation of stairway communication and monitoring system at every fifth floor of each exit stairway. Also requiring, in buildings more than 75 feet high, a video surveillance system in each exit stairway, elevator lobby, elevator hoistway and elevator machine room to enhance situational awareness of emergency responders.

Requiring fire safety and evacuation plans for all occupancies and buildings where required by the International Fire Code (the International Building Code is more widely adopted across the country than the IFC; this would ensure all situations are covered).

Requiring detailed schematic building plans, including an approved Building Information Card, to be located in fire command centers to show the type of construction, stairway access and pressurization, fuel oil tank and hazardous materials locations, standpipe availability and locations, in addition to typical floor plan and details of the building core, means of egress, elevator locations, fire protection systems, firefighting equipment and fire department access.

Limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors used to connect a stairwell to 50 feet or less in buildings more than 75 feet high.

Allowing the option to design buildings more than 420 feet high using the ICC Performance Code, instead of the high-rise provisions of the International Building Code. This change will allow the performance-based NIST WTC recommendations to be considered in a holistic manner.
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm
 
Another example of conspiracy-generated subjective confirmation- biased error.
I have bolded the structural-fire resistance changes relevant to the collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports that have already been implemented as well as Additional Proposed Changes to U.S. Model Building and Fire Codes Based on Recommendations from NIST's WTC Towers Investigationthat were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended.

Safer Buildings Are Goal of New Code Changes Based on Recommendations from NIST World Trade Center Investigation
For Immediate Release: October 1, 2008
Contact: Michael E. Newman
(301) 975-3025
GAITHERSBURG, Md.—Future buildings—especially tall structures—should be increasingly resistant to fire, more easily evacuated in emergencies, and safer overall thanks to 23 major and far-reaching building and fire code changes approved recently by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The recommendations were part of NIST's investigation of the collapses of New York City's World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001. The changes, adopted at the ICC hearings held Sept. 15-21, 2008, in Minneapolis, Minn., will be incorporated into the 2009 edition of the ICC's I-Codes (specifically the International Building Code, or IBC, and the International Fire Code, or IFC), a state-of-the-art model code used as the basis for building and fire regulations promulgated and enforced by U.S. state and local jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions have the option of incorporating some or all of the code's provisions but generally adopt most provisions.

"We applaud this historic action by the ICC—and the tremendous effort by NIST and its WTC investigation team that led to it," said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. "The lessons learned from the tragic events of 9/11 have yielded stronger building and fire codes for a new generation of safer, more robust buildings across the nation."
"These code changes are the result of a strong commitment to public safety by the nation's building and fire safety officials, private sector professionals and the fire service," said Shyam Sunder, lead WTC investigator for NIST. "The improvements that they will ensure will be of lasting value to our society."

The new codes address areas such as increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents; requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings; increasing the width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises; strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as "fireproofing"); improving the reliability of active fire protection systems (such as automatic sprinklers); requiring a new class of robust elevators for access by emergency responders in lieu of an additional stairway; making exit path markings more prevalent and more visible; and ensuring effective coverage throughout a building for emergency responder radio communications.

Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.
These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse, mandating the use of a nationally accepted standard for conducting wind tunnel tests (routinely used for determining wind loads in the design of tall buildings), limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors in stairways, installing stairway communication and monitoring systems on specific floors of tall buildings, and requiring risk assessments for buildings with substantial hazard (such as buildings more than 420 feet high with occupant loads exceeding 5,000 persons).

Summaries of the approved changes and unapproved proposals accompany this news release while detailed lists, along with a chart tracking the progress toward implementing all of the NIST WTC recommendations, may be found at http://wtc.nist.gov.

The leadership provided by the ICC's Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism Resistant Buildings, its Code Technology Committee and the U.S. General Services Administration were key to achieving the code changes. The proposals were developed and refined on the basis of feedback provided by building and fire code experts convened by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) with support from NIST.

"NIST remains strongly committed to continuing our work with these groups toward implementing additional changes to codes and standards based on our WTC recommendations," Sunder said. "That effort also will include the recommendations from the recently completed NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC Building 7, as well as amending the unapproved proposals based on recommendations from the NIST WTC towers investigation for possible adoption during the next revision cycle for the I-Codes."

As a non-regulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

Changes to U.S. Model Building and Fire Codes
Based on Recommendations from NIST's WTC Towers Investigation
Approved at the Final Action Hearings of the International Code Council
Minneapolis, Minn., Sept. 15-21, 2008

The following are the 23 model building and fire code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations now required by the I-Codes (changes displayed in italics are ones that were approved at previous ICC hearings and incorporated at the Minneapolis hearing into the 2009 I-Codes):

An additional (third) exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high.

An increase of 50 percent in the width of exit stairways in new sprinklered buildings.

Permitting the use of elevators for occupant evacuation in fires and other emergencies for all buildings, and as an alternative to the required additional exit stairway for buildings more than 420 feet high. Passenger elevators must meet specific criteria to be used for evacuation purposes.

Hardening of exit stairway and passageway enclosures, and elevator shaft enclosures, in buildings—for all buildings more than 420 feet high, for buildings 75-420 feet high where failure of the enclosure would substantially jeopardize human life, and in essential facilities such as hospitals.

Separating exit stairway enclosures by a distance not less than 30 feet or not less than one-fourth of the maximum building diagonal, whichever is less. For example, a building with a 50-foot by 50-foot floor plan would have a diagonal of about 70 feet. One-fourth of 70 is 17.5 feet, which would be the minimum distance required between exits (since it is less than 30 feet).

A minimum of one fire service access elevator for buildings more than 120 feet high.

Fire service access elevator lobby sizes that are a minimum of 150 square feet in area with sides at least 8 feet long.

Keeping fire service access elevator lobbies free of storage.

Greater reliability of sprinklers with a minimum of two water supply risers for each sprinkler zone in buildings more than 420 feet high. Each riser is required to supply sprinklers on alternate floors and will be placed in remotely located stair enclosures.

Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures

A one-hour increase in the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings more than 420 feet high.

Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings that requires all members of the primary structural frame to have the higher fire resistance rating commonly required for columns. The primary structural frame includes the columns; other structural members including the girders, beams, trusses and spandrels having direct connections to the columns; and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads.

Broadening the definition of the primary structural frame to include bracing members essential to vertical stability (such as floor systems or cross bracing) whether or not they carry gravity loads.

Increasing bond strength for fireproofing to nearly three times greater than currently required for buildings 75-420 feet high and seven times greater for buildings more than 420 feet high.

Field installation requirements for fireproofing to ensure that:
installation complies with the manufacturer's instructions;
the substrates (surfaces being fireproofed) are clean and free of any condition that prevents adhesion;
testing is conducted to demonstrate that required adhesion is maintained for primed, painted or encapsulated steel surfaces; and
the finished condition of the installed fireproofing, upon complete drying or curing, does not exhibit cracks, voids, spalls, delamination or any exposure of the substrate.

Special field inspections of fireproofing to ensure that its as-installed thickness, density and bond strength meet specified requirements and that a bonding agent is applied when the bond strength is less than required due to the effect of a primed, painted or encapsulated steel surface. The inspections are to be performed after the rough installation of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, sprinkler and ceiling systems.

Luminous markings delineating the exit path (including vertical exit enclosures and passageways) in buildings more than 75 feet high to facilitate rapid egress and full building evacuation.

Broadening the use of luminous markings to identify obstacles, exit doors, exit signs and floor numbers in the exit path in buildings more than 75 feet high.

Luminous exit path markings in existing buildings more than 75 feet high with the exception of open, unenclosed stairs in historic buildings.

Increasing the area of the Fire Command Center (the area from which all fire department operations are directed and usually housing the control panel for alarms, sprinklers, etc.) from 96 square feet to 200 square feet with at least one side 10 feet long in buildings more than 75 feet high.

Approved radio coverage for all buildings for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage level of public safety communications systems at the exterior of the building. Approved coverage includes specific requirements for signal strength, system design, installation and maintenance.

Installing an emergency responder radio communications system to provide the required level of radio coverage throughout a building. Typical hardwired communications systems would be replaced.

Additional Proposed Changes to U.S. Model Building and Fire Codes
Based on Recommendations from NIST's WTC Towers Investigation
The following are the nine model building and fire code change proposals consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended:

Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.

Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

Requiring a risk assessment and acceptable mitigation of risks for buildings more than 420 feet high with an occupant load greater than 5,000; for buildings with an occupant load greater than 10,000; and for buildings determined to be at higher than normal risk.

Requiring use of a new standard for conducting wind tunnel testing.

Requiring installation of stairway communication and monitoring system at every fifth floor of each exit stairway. Also requiring, in buildings more than 75 feet high, a video surveillance system in each exit stairway, elevator lobby, elevator hoistway and elevator machine room to enhance situational awareness of emergency responders.

Requiring fire safety and evacuation plans for all occupancies and buildings where required by the International Fire Code (the International Building Code is more widely adopted across the country than the IFC; this would ensure all situations are covered).

Requiring detailed schematic building plans, including an approved Building Information Card, to be located in fire command centers to show the type of construction, stairway access and pressurization, fuel oil tank and hazardous materials locations, standpipe availability and locations, in addition to typical floor plan and details of the building core, means of egress, elevator locations, fire protection systems, firefighting equipment and fire department access.

Limiting the length of horizontal transfer corridors used to connect a stairwell to 50 feet or less in buildings more than 75 feet high.

Allowing the option to design buildings more than 420 feet high using the ICC Performance Code, instead of the high-rise provisions of the International Building Code. This change will allow the performance-based NIST WTC recommendations to be considered in a holistic manner.
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm

You can read what the International Code Council (ICC) actually adopted here http://standards.gov/upload/35_ICC.pdf on page 3. If one reads it they will see that the only adopted changes were about stairways, sprinklers, and SFRM inspection. None of the structural recommendations were adopted.
 
Last edited:
You can read what the International Code Council (ICC) actually adopted here http://standards.gov/upload/35_ICC.pdf on page 3. If one reads it they will see that the only adopted changes were about stairways, sprinklers, and SFRM inspection. None of the structural recommendations were adopted.
So? It's not like there are buildings getting attacked all the time. Getting people out is important, forcing everyone to building terrorist proof buildings is foolish.

This isn't obvious to you? :boggled:
 
You can read what the International Code Council (ICC) actually adopted here http://standards.gov/upload/35_ICC.pdf. If one reads it they will see that the only adopted changes were about stairways, sprinklers, and SFRM inspection. None of the structural recommendations were adopted.

This is what you said " There have been no building code changes relevant to the alleged collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports."
I proved to you otherwise. Increased protection for structures in fire directly the result of the NIST WTC reports including structural recommendations. [Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures- is a summary of the prescriptive new added requirements in the ICC codes] Your link does not say what you claim.
I have in my hands the IBC 2009 codes with the NIST recommendations implemented. You don't know what you are talking about.
 
So? It's not like there are buildings getting attacked all the time. Getting people out is important, forcing everyone to building terrorist proof buildings is foolish.

This isn't obvious to you? :boggled:

Your use of the term terrorist proof is not legitimate here. Fires aren't specifically a terrorist issue and NIST claims the buildings came down due to fire induced progressive collapse. It was the so-called resistance to progressive collapse due to fire recommendations that weren't adopted.
 
Last edited:
This is what you said " There have been no building code changes relevant to the alleged collapse mechanisms found in the NIST WTC reports."
I proved to you otherwise. Increased protection for structures in fire directly the result of the NIST WTC reports including structural recommendations. [Providing minimum structural integrity for framed and bearing wall structures- is a summary of the prescriptive new added requirements in the ICC codes] Your link does not say what you claim.
I have in my hands the IBC 2009 codes with the NIST recommendations implemented. You don't know what you are talking about.

The ICC adopted no structural changes and the collapse mechanisms alleged by NIST were structural issues.

Even in what you posted earlier it was stated

Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.
These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse,



I think the not knowing what they are talking about would be more appropriately applied to your complaints.
 
Last edited:
Your use of the term terrorist proof is not legitimate here. Fires aren't specifically a terrorist issue and NIST claims the buildings came down due to fire induced progressive collapse. It was the so-called resistance to progressive collapse due to fire recommendations that weren't adopted.
Come on Tony. They also considered the damage and circumstances of the day.

These buildings were not "as built".
 
The ICC adopted no structural changes and the collapse mechanisms alleged by NIST were structural issues. Are you an engineer?
I have the codes and I can read and spot the changes. The structural changes are in Sections 403.2.3 and 1614 so you're wrong here. The collapses were caused by fires which the other changes address as a direct result of the NIST NCSTAR recommendations.
 
Last edited:
Come on Tony. They also considered the damage and circumstances of the day.

These buildings were not "as built".

Can you remind us what NIST alleges to have brought down the buildings?

You are really reaching. Unfortunately, that is what is necessary when one insists on supporting a false story.
 

Back
Top Bottom