Call for WTC Engineering Study 3

[DaveVikingPE]

Here's a link to a New York Post story, SAB, to wit:

December 18, 2001 -- Relatives of World Trade Center victims won Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backing yesterday for a federal study of whether design flaws hastened the Twin Towers' collapse in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she will "definitely" call for a blue-ribbon federal engineering study...

...

While the World Trade Center's designers say no structure could have survived thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel, fire engineering experts have questioned the towers' design and the quality of their fireproofing...Regenhard [mother of a victim] says her call for a study is backed by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as well as groups representing relatives of police, firefighters and civilians killed in the double collapse...She noted that Osama bin Laden, who was in the construction business, has expressed astonishment at the buildings' collapse..."Even a demonic barbarian who lives in a cave was surprised," Regenhard said..."My son was not killed by fire," she said. "My son was killed by a building."

===================================================

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/36989.htm

I personally believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sen. Clinton's call for a "Blue Ribbon Engineering Study" though I would point out that AISC, et al. have been doing just that and the results may come out in a 2002 conference (source: Modern Steel Construciton magazine).

I'm offended that, though I understand that losing a loved one is horrible, someone is blaming the WTC's design, or questioning it's integrity. Engineers, especially Structural Engineers are going to be misquoted, misunderstood and wrongly blamed in the coming months, so we'd better get ready...

I, for one, hope that any engineering reports both tell the truth (I think that the building couldn't have withstood the fires and that the design was certainly adequate) and educate the public.

Comments?

 

[Qshake]

I'm utterly speechless at this stupidity...

 

[JAE]

Terrorists don't kill people, buildings kill people.

I think, therefore, that we should ban all buildings from our society, or at least require people to get a license to walk into one as a first step in controlling this crisis in America. Definitely do not want children getting near buildings either.

We just have to understand that in this grand old world, whenever something bad happens, its got to be somebody's fault. Since we can't find OBL, let's go after those evil engineers and contractors who were greedy, getting rich on the backs of others by not spraying a little more fireproofing on the steel and thus creating an "silent killer" just waiting for the moment to collapse on those unsuspecting people. The jet fuel was simply a straw that broke the camel's back (apologies to all those camel owners out there).

 

[Qshake]

JAE, thanks for providing the words...and the humor! I think that says it all.

 

[dougantholz]

First JAE, thank you, thank you, thank you...
Second the Federal Government is paying for a "blue ribbon" investigation. FEMA has brought in a list that includes engineers from ABS Consulting (formerly EQE), Sidmore, Owings & Merril, URS, Nat. Institute of Standards, Army Corp of Engineers, NFPA, AISC, NRC of Canada, et. al.
When someone is saying that they want a blue ribbon commision at this point, that's just politics, and bad politics.
As a matter of fact I know that the team is working on building numerous SAP and other FE models to check the colapse time history of the building to verify what failed.

As a secondary note, they has been some early conclusions that the buildings around the WTC failed in their fire protection. Some of those buildings collapsed more than they should have. I have heard that if you go into some of the buildings there is fire protection missing where it got knocked off the members.

I also know that the WTC did not get primed, which is a requirement if fire proof spray is going to adhere, at least what we know now about the process.

This is what I know.
Thanks for reading.
Later

 

[DaveVikingPE]

I saw the second collapse with my own eyes (I was walking in the opposite direction when the first went). From what I recollect, the fires raged for at least an hour before the collapses. Also, #7 WTC's collapse, hours later, the third building to go, has been blamed on raging fires due to an enormous amount of diesel fuel (diesel doesn't burn like gas, right? I know...) being stored such that the NYC emergency bunker's generators would work in times of emergency.

My gut reaction was surprise at the collapses. My gut reaction also, since "I was there" was that there were bombs on board the planes - soonafter proved incorrect. Could the impacts from the enormous amount of debris have contributed to #7's failure? Perhaps, but I'm waiting for the reports.

How long would the towers have lasted had the fire protection been in 100% perfect condition? What was the rating? 1 hour? 2 hours? 24 hours? For what temperature? Would the sprinkler or other fire-combatting systems been adequate to handle enormous gasoline fires? Could an ultra-modern hook-and-ladder truck reach the fires? Could the firemen (I lost a good friend who was a fireman there, great guitar player, too) have fought the fire for hours and hours without succumbing to fatigue? These are/were the questions going through my mind whenever I'm asked, as an engineer, by friends/acquantences/laypeople about the collapses. Their first instinct is that the design was faulty. Making these folks understand that a) ok, which part of the design was faulty? The damn things lasted 25 years, withstood some incredible winds, snow, rain, etc. not to mention a large explosion already - so what was wrong with the design? and b) there really are physical and (equally real) economic limits when it comes to engineered structures. Should all of our structures be concrete monoliths, limited to five storeys, with walls ten feet thick?

This is why I'm hoping a "blue ribbon engineering report" doesn't "dumb down" the language of engineering (modulus of elasticity? what's that?) and will prove that a lot of engineers out there really do know what they're talking about.

 

[evelrod]

Fat chance of that ever happening, Dave. 2002 is a political year you know. You are going to hear some of the "dumbest" statements from supposedely intelligent people that you will ever hear again. Mark my words, sir. It is the American way to lay blame first and when that solves nothing, to finally fix the problem. But trust that the problem WILL be fixed!


Rod

 

[DaveVikingPE]

I agree. Note I said "hope."

My mother met me at the office last week (I work about five blocks from the WTC) and as she hadn't been to "Ground Zero" yet, she stopped by the site prior to meeting up with me. She mentioned "I'm surprised all the buildings didn't come down." I replied, "where'd you get your degree in structural engineering, mom?" Not disrespectuflly, of course...

The New York Times has generally been giving the whole evolving engineering investigations a pretty good write-up. They've been interviewing folks from Meuser-Rutledge, Thornton-Thomasetti and such - which is a good thing because it's about time these firms got to be household names (like Cantor-Fitzgerald, no?). On the other hand, I've read some of the most arrogant, infuriatingly ignorant articles in the more local papers like the New York Press (one writer, not an engineer by a long shot, INSISTED that the impacts from the planes brought down the towers).

In the latest issue of Structural Engineering magazine, the author of one column (who might be an Eng-Tips person, no offense, and I'm paraphrasing) asks why there aren't any structural engineers in the American political landscape. Certainly it would help in the case of WTC, then again, maybe not. Mostly it's lawyers, of course, and frankly lawyers are better trained at both avoiding getting sued and taking a punch from the public. This is getting WAAAAY off subject and doesn't really belong in this forum (better for the ethics forum), but what the heck.

 

[brad]

JAE--TA, I had to pull myself off the floor from my laughter.

Everybody else, I'm also in agreement. What a great world it would be if people could discuss things rationally, with a knowledge base. Sadly, many otherwise intelligent people tend to drive down the intellects of these issues because they are 'too busy' to want to understand the details (although not 'too busy' to want to engage in the debate for which they are not qualified).

Sadder still is the fact that so many politicos are happy to feed this frenzy for cheap points.

Brad

 

[eureka]

Two applicable old proverbs:

People with the least knowledge voice the strongest opinions

People with narrow minds have broad tongues

 

[ludvik]

This "study" is an outrage.

The engineering of the building saved lives. The only people killed were basically the ones directly hit by the plane, otherwise pretty much everyone else got out. If the buildings had fallen is soon as they were hit tens of thousands more would have died.

The engineers should be given a congressional medal of honor, not a probe into their competance.

I used to like Hillary...

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Folks,

The plot thickens...

Here's a story from today's New York Times (you might have to register - it's free - to read it) entitled: "City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/nyregion/20DIES.html

I think the article is half hype ("...But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."&quot and half common sense/truth (..."No one is believed to have died in the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. But its collapse did further complicate the rescue and recovery efforts under way at the scene.&quot.

 

[LPPE]

A New York paper (Post, I believe) reported that most fatalites happened when the first plane hit. All exits to lower floors were cut off, and anyone above where the plane hit perished (about 1600 people). After the second plane hit, there was still one exit stairwell open. Some people decided to go up to roof for rescue, while others went down through the smoke. Obviously, the people that went up perished (about 600 people). The rest of the casualties were firemen, police, and rescue personel.

It still turns my stomach to think about it even after 3 months.

 

[evelrod]

Each bldg. stood for an hour or more inspite of an impact far beyond anything ANY engineer would have anticipated. The bldgs withstood the tremendos impact and the flames from nearly THIRTY THOUSAND GALLONS OF BURNING JET A!!!
How could anyone expect more? 99 percent of the people below the impact zone survived!!!

We have the final say with these politicos, boys and girls. The ones that jump on the 'blame the engineers' band wagon, write letters, e-mails, and VOTE THE SUCKERS OUT!!!

It is the American way to fix blame before fixing the problem. It is time to ghange all that.

You that learn not from this terrible experience in our lives will be doomed to repeat it.


Rod

 

[RDK]

Engineers have liability insurance, terrorists do not.

Enough said
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[ishvaaag]

What comes to the thing of thinking that money is all about. But everyone in the world see is not.

 

[Polecat]

I just have to disagree with you, DaveViking:

You said that you: "believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sen. Clinton's call for a "Blue Ribbon Engineering Study""

I'm sorry, Dave, but you need to realize that Hillary is still doing what Hillary does best ---sticking her nose into something that she knows absolutely nothing about (remember her healthcare plan?).

This whole idea of yet another "engineering study" on this is sickening. Those towers were designed to take the full impact of a 727, and guess what ---- they survived the impact of an even larger plane than that. No building, no tower in this world is designed to take what those structures were subjected to. And now they are looking for someone to blame?

When someone says that their son was "killed by a building," I hear a mother's grieving heart being reinforced by a lawyer's greedy soul. Can't you just see the class action suits being filed after they surmise that maybe just one A325 bolt might not have been torqued down to the exact specs? Yes! Let's go for the jugular.

Furthermore, why are the survivors and families of the WTC's victims any more deserving than the ones in Oklahoma City? I don't recall the government offering those survivors a million dollars as solace. Oh, but wait! Hillary isn't Oklahoma's senator, is she?

We desperately need 535 new faces in congress. By thumbing their noses at the Constitution, this present group is selling us all down the river. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said,"He who trades liberty for security will end up with neither."

Ok, now I'm done with my rant ----- whose next?

http://www.spiraleng.com

If you wish to visit my website, we can discuss these or other issues further.

 

[evelrod]

Polecat,
I personally don't care much for Hillary, as I don't much care for politicians in general, no matter their party affiliation. I make a simple judgement---Am I better off now than when they took office?

I will reserve judgement on Hillary. I am from the other coast, but she will probably have an effect on all of us.
As far as President Clinton, my answer is a resounding YES. I could care less what his personal problems are, that is an issue between he and his wife. History will be his judge, not us.
George Washington used excessive profanity, but he is still the' father of our country'. Abraham Lincoln consorted with prostituites while in office (indeed, his wife Mary Todd died from Sypalis) and he remains THE greatest president ever. Jack Kennedy shared Maralyn with Robert and we turned a blind eye. Were they as bad as Nixon? I think not.
To the point, I will judge the current crop of politicians by the same criteria (including George W. Bush)---am I better off now than when they took office?

We shall see, we shall most certainly see!


Rod

 

[Polecat]

Evelrod:

You have made some good observations. I believe that one of the things that first got Reagan elected was his asking us if we were currently better off than when the prior administration took office.

Don't misread me, though, I am not qualified to judge Hillary or her husband personally. But when she (or anyone else) gets involved in something that is a detriment to my profession, I will not hesitate to speak out critically.

I believe that your question about be better off is being answered each week now by every one of our elected officials ---- and the answer is a resounding NO. My main concern is that under the guise of waging a war that was never constitutionally declared, we are losing our freedoms one after the other and are heading towards a real police state, including the issuance of ID cards that can eventually be used to control the whole populace.

You are probably historically correct when you said that George Washington used profanity a lot, but I would sure like to get an earful of what he would have to say today.
We would do well to remember his admodition to us when he said: "Government is not reason, nor is eloquence. It is brute force; and like fire, can be a dangerous servant or a fearful master."

Sorry about Rant #2, guys, I will now exit, stage right.

http://www.spiraleng.com

If you wish to visit my website, we can discuss these or other issues further.

 

[evelrod]

He who trades liberty for security will end up with neither.

I am glad to see we are on the same page.


Merry Christmas



Rod