Slashdot Mirror
Leaked FEMA/ASCE Draft Report On WTC Collapse
securitas writes "The New York Times obtained a copy of the World Trade Center draft report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers about the engineering failures that caused the towers to collapse. Among the findings: 'Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled and the fires generated heat equivalent to the energy output of a nuclear power plant' reports the NYT (Yahoo link). Amazingly, if it wasn't for the fire (or another secondary catastrophic force), the towers would have remained standing."
I think most of us in the construction industry (architecture) were concerned about this as events were unfolding, even before the first tower collapsed. But the saddest part was finding out later that concessions had been made during design/construction in the sizing and configuration of sprinkler systems including the abscense of a rooftop water supply.
Who knows if it really would have helped, but having to second guess now is hardly comforting. As in most things, those that focus on stupid quantitative evaluations of design (cost per square foot for example) are doomed to come up short when all the chips are really down.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
Perhaps you could take your anti-capitalist rhetoric elsewhere, comrade. If you had any decency, you'd know that in the time period the towers were designed and constructed in they were paragons of efficiency and safety. Far from cutting all costs and maintenance, the towers were meticulously designed to withstand all manner of natural forces, fires, and other disasters. They were even designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 jetliner, the largest then available. Alas, a 767 is much larger and carries more fuel. Even then, the towers would have stood had it not been for the fire, and the impact and explosion were far more than any designer could've ever dreamed would happen.
My friend, you appear to have a huge chip on your shoulder that is clouding your judgement. People died because madmen hijacked two jetliners and deliberately slammed them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent human beings. Corporate greed and stockholders had nothing to do with it, and it is callous, irresponsible, and shallow of you to even suggest such a thing to further your obvious hatred of corporate America.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
He stated that the airplanes could have not brought them down seeing that buildings of a lesser, equal, or greater size get the same sort of impact daily with the force of winds.
Well, this may be true, but when you consider that the airplanes *did* down the two buildings, one must realise that there is something flawed about that statement. I would accept that most skyscrapers are pummeled with the strength of an airplane crash daily, except that the force is spread across the entire structure, or at least one entire face, of the building. Consider what it might feel like if you were walking down the street and suddenly the entire energy of the ~50mph wind gusts that you normally can easily withstand were channeled at a 1cm^2 section of your chest, or even your skull. Wouldn't that at least completely knock the wind out of you? I haven't the time to properly do the math myself right now, but it may work out that such an energy release over such a small space would be enough force to pierce skin and possibly break bones.
And that is what made the difference, aside from the fire and explosions that are discussed elsewhere in the thread.
Problem is though, all that force was concentrated into a very tight area, only a few floors, thus putting the building under great stress. Plus the floors were ripped apart by the impact, a thing that would not happen with wind.
Think for a few moments before posting.
- These buildings received Certificates of Occupancy, had been tested in the prior attack, their systems and procedures were as good as any other in the world.
- There is NO evidence of cost-cutting, sub-standard materials or equipment, etc. This was a public building owned until recently by the Port Authority of NY & NJ and by all reports kept in exemplary condition.
- These were not slip-shod towers built overnight in some 3rd-world country without reviews, standards, or regular inspections.
- Aside from their unusual tube-design (which appears to have been their greatest asset) and height there is nothing special about WTC towers that would separate them from tall buildings around the world. This includes materials.
Finally, before you post realize that 3,000 humans died horribly in this disaster. Perhaps before you post your Monday-morning-quarterbacking, rumor-spreading & conspiracy theories you might show a bit of respect for those folks and the ones they left behind.A little courtesy and respect is appreciated.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
:Peter
Calling the WTC's collapse an engineering failure is kind of like taking C4 to slashdot's servers and saying that the code failed somehow. You just can't reasonably have expected them to anticipate this. Expecting a building of similar requirements (e.g., height, usable space, windows, etc) to withstand both the impact of a modern airliner and the jet fuel may well be an impossible task, especially when trying to do it within any reasonable budget. Please think about what you are saying and try to be a little less arrogant. Thank You
16 days after Sept 11th, I received this in an email from my father, (who happens to be a Mechanical Engineer):
- Professor Thomas Mackin, who currently teaches Failure Mechanisms in Engineering Materials class, made this short presentation (attached) after the World Trade Tower tragedy. This presentation was made in response to the
Chancellor's request for teachers to discuss with their classes the recent events. Mackin was clearly as shaken up about the events as were the rest of us. He only had a short response to his final question: "As engineers, what can we do to prevent this from happening. - Nothing."
There was simply too much energy put into the buildings. bin Laden knew that, the engineers know that... it's a damn shame we're back to the accusations, finger-pointing, and blame-placing that so much plagues our culture.Attached was a .PDF file, "ME 346 - Engineering Analysis of Tragedy at WTC."
The engineers did their job. They did it well. World Trade Center 1 & 2 were good buildings -- I stood on top of one just over 10 years ago. I can hardly believe I never will again.
Osama bin Laden and his cronies are the ones -- the ONLY ones -- responsible for this outrage. Please, let's try to remember that.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
The US deserves every bit of what it got in the WTC. And there are hundreds of thousands of "madmen" and "madwomen" who would say the same thing.
After the planes slammed into the towers, the fireballs that burst over Lower Manhattan consumed perhaps a third of the 10,000 gallons of fuel on board each plane, for example, but did little structural damage themselves, the report says. Like a giant well of lighter fluid, though, the remaining fuel burned within minutes, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo over multiple floors and igniting the catastrophic inferno that brought the towers down.
The jet fuel did NOT directly cause the collapse of the towers. It was gone "within minutes," all burned away. So all you people saying that the jet fuel caused the collapse because it was impossible to put out and burned at a very high temperature are wrong, according to this report. They say it was an ordinary blaze, ignited by the fuel but left to burn on its own.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
It is said that the airplanes caused an impact of equal or lesser force than what it would experience from day-to-day wind.
Keep in mind that when calculations are done to measure the force of wind on a building, it is measured as the wind force distributed against the ENTIRE surface of the building.
The airplanes caused an equivalent force to a much smaller area on the side of the building. Thus, this smaller area experienced an impulse far greater than it would normally feel from wind. Compare apples to apples, people. Please.
Common sense: If in fact you really think that wind force did equal plane force on the WTC's over the same area, then tell me this: how come those windows aren't caving in and a huge hole ripped due to wind? They did cave in under force of the plane.
Yes, but would it be possable to get an ordernary fire to burn as it did if it didn't have the 6,000 gallons of jet fuel to kick-start it?
10 minutes, Where did you get that figure from?
The report says there were appr. 10000gallons of fuel in the plane of which two third flew into the building. With an energy density of 34 MJ/L this is a total energy of about 900 GJ just from the kerosine. The specific heat capacity of water is 4200 J/kgK, so it was enough to vaporize 2.6 million litres of water, a cube with side lenghts of 140 meters. Plus the secondary fire of the furniture.
This event was just too much for any security system. It was only a matter of time.
it was over six months ago and if Americans should move on - it was a terrible tragedy yes - but enough's been said about it already.
would it be ok if we try to prevent it from happening again first? like maybe by going after people who plan terrorist attacks against us... would that be ok?
I got beat up in school once - my dad told me I shouldn't harp on it for too long - I should just get over it. I remember thinking "wtf! Does he realize I have to go back to school tomorrow?" It's kinda hard to get over it when they're still out there.
Chip? No, I just can't stand to see people mouth off on things they either (a) have no knowledge of or (b) can't back up anyway. I will address your points in order:
1. Corporate America built the towers and staffed them. SO? Buildings are built and staffed all over the globe by billions of people every day. What is your point?
2. Since when does corporate America "label" anybody anything at all? Did Cantor-Fitzgerald "label" those poor Muslims something they didn't like? As last I recall, the only people that like to "label" anything these days are spinmeisters, talking heads, and religious zealots. Either way, that has no bearing whatsoever on the involvement of corp. America in causing the towers to be attacked. Proclaiming otherwise is like saying a rape victim caused her rape because she was female (i.e. an obvious target).
3. Market demand indeed. The one failing of capitalism that I routinely hate is that it sometimes bears a striking resemblance to a parent and child. If the child (i.e. consumer) wants something from the parent (i.e. the market), the child doesn't want to be told "no", and does not understand why some things are better that way. Consumers want to have their cake and eat it, too, and many businesses (and governments) do not have the gonads to deny them what is clearly not in their best interests.
That being said, airline passengers KNEW the ramifications of the security lapses, or if they didn't they should've taken the time to find out as all the reports are in the public domain. I place a very high value on my own skin as I am quite attached to it, and I don't take such matters lightly. Airlines had tried levying increased fees for increased security, and passengers voted with their wallets. It's sad, but in many ways they got what they asked for. They had a choice, and the majority chose wrong. Learning lessons can be painful sometimes -- just ask any child.
4. Corporate America has lobbied heavily? While this is true, it pales in comparison to what the past presidential administration lobbied for. Democrats would even like to see illegal immigrants allowed to vote, for crying out loud -- alongside convicted felons and the mentally insane. Please note I'm NOT a Republican, as I have no taste for their spinelessness. I'm Libertarian, but back to the chase...
"Anti-capitalist" can be taken how you like, insult or not. But to be against capitalism is to be blind to the very forces that make your daily life possible. The car you drive, the phone you use, the business you work at, the computer you work on, the Internet itself -- all of it has been created for, by, or as a result of corporations and capitalism. It is not perfect, but it is the best thing humans have come up with so far. All other forms of government have either failed (Communism, Socialism) have encroached on personal liberties (Monarchy), or brutally supress their own people and dissidents (Despotism, Religous Oligarchy). When someone comes up with a system of government that rewards hard work AND takes care of those that choose NOT to work as hard, I'll reconsider, but until then, Capitalism is (IMHO) the best thing going.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
My opinion is that anytime a large structure or construct fails, no matter what the reason, it should be seriously studied so that we know what works and what doesn't so that future structures can incorperate the helpful features and remove the extra features so that stucture can be build cheaper, faster, better and quicker.
Reports like this may lead to better fire systems in tall buildings, better alloys and all around safer buildings. Because the next tall building disaster could be in London, Paris, KL, Osaka, Shanghi or Mexico City. It's not an America exclusive danger.
It's not about lingering on the event, or saying enough about it, because it would be wrong to forget events like 9-11, Hiroshima, Dresden, the Death Camps, and the list goes on and on, because if we forget, the horrible things will happen again.
It can happen in the US, it could happen anywhere, tall buildings, wealth and crazy people willing to kill anyone isn't just and American thing.
If I was a terrorist, I would hijack a 747 cargo plane. Lots of potential for causing damage and no passengers to deal with.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
For many of us, South Park notwithstanding, still feel every day the loss of friends & lovers & family to that disease. Furthermore many of us watch yet more friends, family & lovers continue to fight for their lives, every day.
That many somehow believe that the epidemic is over or that they are somehow safe from it is only more disheartening and even more tragic.
So unless you've lost ones close to you to HIV, or to the events of September 11, 2001, please don't take it upon yourself try and tell the rest of us what we should find "funny" or not.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
should America be punished with "violence" ?? I don't that would solve anything.
Isn't there any difference at all between the two sides? Can't you think of anything??
Here is a hint:
We (America) do our best to kill only those who would harm us. We do that by spending millions of dollars on precision-guided weapons. We do it by being careful who we shoot.
Terrorists on the other hand seek out innocent bystanders. They kill children too young to know what's going on. They brutally massacre crowds of people at parties. And They do it on purpose.
If you honestly don't see the difference - then I humbly submit that you are a moron.
>We (America) do our best to kill only those who >would harm us. We do that by spending millions >of dollars on precision-guided weapons. We do it >by being careful who we shoot.
You watch too much TV. Brainwashed American.
9/11 happened out of frustration with your government, your foreign policy, your contry's assumption it can do whatever it wants because it's America. 'God bless America' Land of the free my ass. Protecting democracy overseas is simply imparting an unwelcome political agenda. Erecting military bases on holy land is inexcusable.
Doing little until bitten very hard in the ass doesn't make the reaction any more honourable, any more 'right', whatever that is.
Maybe you should take a long, hard look at why this all happened in the first place. Why is there so much hatred toward America ? Hatred that wells up into terrorist acts.
You Americans seem to think your country is completely innocent of any atrocity, that you're some saviour, always welcome, always wanted. Hey.. you're not. Enourmous armies and incredible economic clout shield you from the worst that opinion and cultural feeling can throw at you. DOn't let this be a sign that you're popular though, it's more likely to indicate you're bullying your way around as per usual. 'America the international policeman' Pfft. Cops are bad enough at upholding a fading semblance of justice without being blinded by a few good deeds.
You've trashed Afghanistan , and while you've done very well in destroying the despicable Taliban, you haven't caught Bin Laden. Something tells me you've talked a lot of shit about killing 'Terrorists' though. Those you've caught you treat worse than slaves and animals. That isn't honour. There are basic human rights that should never be void, lest the same happen to you.
Karma bit you on the ass last september and you just won't stop whinging. Now your citizens are losing more rights from what I hear. Land of the free...
>Isn't there any difference at all between the
> two sides? Can't you think of anything??
America has big armies and a media machine with no equal ?
so...
>should America be punished with "violence" ??
>I don't that would solve anything.
'"Violence" ??' No question there mate, it was pretty violent. A whole 3000 of you died and 6 months later you're still pissing and moaning about it.
Yes, those 3000 people may have been innocent of the crimes they died in retaliation for. Yet 'American interests' don't bring the world peace and happiness. Quite the contrary. Look it up somewhere apart from Disney.gov, or completefarce.us.truth sometime and you might see it for yourself.
I think it solved your complacency. Except you're just meeting it with more violence. It might work, I'm no general or national leader, although I've a feeling you're just walking toward a big whole you'll have a lot of trouble backing out of.
You've obviously never been in a combat situation.
I was in the Army. I bet that means I've been closer than you have.
Ever heard stories of vietnam, how you systematically looted, raped, murdered and destroyed whole villages?
Looting, rape, and murder happened. Do you think this is the way we wage war? Do you think american generals sit in rooms and plan to hurt civilians? They do not. The people we are fighting however do make plans to kill civilians. Once again, this is the difference between they and us.
These things happen, yes, even today. Do you want to know the number of children who will die tomorrow because of US clusterbombs?
Why wait until tomorrow. Please post a link to a story about children being killed by US cluster bombs today, or yesterday. If you cannot find such a story I will continue to believe that you are wrong.
Range attack is a very cowardly and shrewd way to fight an enemy.
Is that more or less cowardly than hiding in a cave brainwashing religious zealots into believing that if they spill the blood of innocents (even people who agree with their cause) they can be rewarded with sex in the afterlife.
Believing [snip] "We" are better than "them".
So let me get this straight - you condemn me for thinking We are better than Them then turn around and say "you're too stupid or incapable to make a better political agenda" illustrating that you think you are better than me. What a hypocrite!
What I would suggest for you is to travel to europe and live there for a couple of years.
Surprise! I lived in Germany for two years, Korea for 1 year, and Saudi Arabia for 6 mo. I've been all over the world. What, you haven't? Well then let me assure you, Europeans and Arabs are far more arrogant than Americans. That's been my experience.