Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fireproofing eyed in trade center collapse
AP ^ | 4/5/5 | KAREN MATTHEWS

Posted on 04/05/2005 9:48:56 PM PDT by SmithL

NEW YORK - Federal investigators said Tuesday the World Trade Center buildings probably would not have collapsed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks if fireproofing had adhered firmly to the columns and floors.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology also concluded that the average survivor took more than double the estimated time to descend emergency stairwells, and that better communication between emergency responders could have saved more lives.

The NIST, which issued three reports on the attacks, did not blame designers or builders for the buildings' collapse. However, Shyam Sunder, who led NIST's fire and safety investigation, said there are now better ways to ensure that fireproofing adheres to steel.

"Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires, which are not normal building fires, the buildings would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing that had been dislodged," he said.

The reports are likely to spur debate about how to build safer skyscrapers. Some investigators and rescuers have advocated "fireproof" elevators and stronger stairwells in new high-rises. In theory, fireproof elevators could have taken firefighters to the upper floors and helped people get out faster.

The NIST findings were met with mixture of skepticism and praise from family members of Sept. 11 victims who attended a public hearing on the reports.

Laura Weinberg, whose husband Richard Aronow died in the attack, said she was disappointed with some of the conclusions about design features. "I think they've soft-pedaled the issue of spray-on fireproofing," she said.

But Allan Horwitz, whose son Aaron also died in the attacks, said he was "very pleased" with NIST's work. "It seems to me like they're doing everything they can to find out what happened, why it happened, and how we can prevent it from happening in the future," he said.

The report also found that in Tower 1, it took the average survivor 48 seconds to descend a flight of stairs. This was double the slowest evacuation time estimated in a current fire safety handbook used by engineers who design buildings, the report said.

The report said that some people delayed their evacuation by "milling" in offices, deliberating about what to do, or debating how to find a stairwell.

NIST said the times in the models are based on phased evacuations, not the full-scale evacuation that occurred in the towers. The evacuation models cited in the NIST report are used by architects to calculate how much capacity is needed in stairwells, elevators, and other exit routes.

In addition, the report found that the much-documented problems with radio communication and information-sharing among first responders probably "contributed to the loss of emergency responder lives."

The findings represent NIST's last step before issuing its final recommendations in June, the culmination of exhaustive research and testing that produced 10,000 pages of data.

The official World Trade Center death toll stands at 2,749, including those killed on the two jetliners that hijackers crashed into the buildings.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; fireproofing; worldtradecenter; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
How many lives would have been svaed by asbestos?
1 posted on 04/05/2005 9:48:56 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

More lives on the head of the environuts.


2 posted on 04/05/2005 9:52:06 PM PDT by ProudVet77 (It's boogitty boogitty boogitty season!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The jihad against asbestos is partially responsible.


3 posted on 04/05/2005 9:57:19 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Soon after the attack, we heard a little about how al-Qaeda had done engineering studies to achieve maximum destructive effect, then we heard nothing more. I would like to see this followed up. Was the change from asbestos on the lower floors to asbestos-free fireproofing on the upper floors a factor in the terrorists' calculations?


4 posted on 04/05/2005 9:57:47 PM PDT by csn vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

And how many people would have died from the asbestos? How many people would have sued the heck out of everyone concerned?

That said, I don't get why these people are complaining. They were only supposed to stand for an hour after taking a hit from a fully loaded 707, the most common airliner of the time. They took hits from far larger airliners and still managed to stand for roughly their design spec time despite stresses far in excess of their design spec. I'd say the designers and the construction workers did an adequate job.

That said, everyone above the impacts was pretty much screwed when the JP4 ignited. When the cement itself is burning.... Their only hope at that point was either parachutes or aerial rescue off the roof, and nobody had either.


5 posted on 04/05/2005 10:00:46 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csn vinnie

Quinn on 104.7 was on that pretty heavy for a while.


6 posted on 04/05/2005 10:02:53 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Load of crap! The WTC wouldn't have withstood a 707 which it was designed for. It was a trussed built building. If it was a conventional skyscraper built with beams like the Empire State, it would still be standing. But no amount of fireproofing on steel would remain after a plane slams into it at 500 miles an hour. The steel in the trusses failed due to the heat of the jet fuel and started a domino effect, the end.
7 posted on 04/05/2005 10:11:59 PM PDT by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bommer
The WTC was designed to survive an impact by a landing 707, not one flying at 400-600 mph and fully fueled.
8 posted on 04/05/2005 10:13:44 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Just Blame President Bush For Everything, It Is Easier Than Using Your Brain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Fireproofing eyed in trade center collapse

Odd, it's pretty clear that the planes did it.

9 posted on 04/05/2005 10:15:28 PM PDT by thoughtomator ("The Passion of the Opus" - 2 hours of a FReeper being crucified on his own self-pitying thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

Still wouldn't matter. Trusses are not engineeringly sound in fires. Firemen even state to never trust a truss. It had not inner stregth. The support came from the outer walls of the building. It took the hit, but could not survive the heat from the jet fuel.


10 posted on 04/05/2005 10:17:01 PM PDT by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

And despite all that, the first tower to collapse stood for almost an hour - the second stood for well more than that.

These people have *no* grounds to complain that the WTC didn't function as designed - it functioned well beyond its limits.


11 posted on 04/05/2005 10:19:32 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
NONE

I don't care how the "fireproofing" was applied, there is nothing known to man that will withstand an impact of that magnitude. The Fireproofing worked real well considering a jet moving at 550knots slammed into it. If it didn't do it's job as well as it did the towers would have fallen a hell of alot sooner than they did.

This story is Bull Shit.
12 posted on 04/05/2005 10:20:26 PM PDT by glaseatr (God Bless, My Nephew, SGT Adam Estep 2nd Bat, 5th Cav reg died Thursday April 29, 2004 Baghdad Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
NIST is less than a quarter mile from my house. I'd love to see the reports as I had 30 years experience in high profile building design and construction.

While I don't recall that calculating airplane impact was one of the standard structural design parameters at that time, I do know that wind load effects as outlined in various codes were grossly underestimated. Most especially wind acceleration and velocity over water and the variances over the heights of buildings. Wind tunnel testing of building models had not yet become standard for such behemoths. So I am most interested in seeing NIST report on the fuel loading and effects of wind in the fire intensity and spread...think bellows effect.

All that aside, I doubt any approved fire-retardant material would have remained intact on the impacted floors. Underwriters Lab. specifications are very specific in the anchorages and joints which are inevitable. Their tests are (or were)conducted in chambers where the wall/structure assemblies are static. Once the integrity of the fire retardant envelope of what ever material is breeched the tested rating becomes meaningless. Even more so when there is such a huge liquid fuel load penetrating through the joints and shattered panels/coatings.

There more factors that need to be explained to lay people but keep in mind there is nos such animal as a "fire-proof" building, we design them to resist fire spread for set periods of time to allow evacuation while structural integrity is maintained for 1, 2, or 4 hours, depending on the structural element, usage and occupancy. NIST seems to point out that their standards were highly optimistic in this regard.
13 posted on 04/05/2005 10:25:30 PM PDT by Covenantor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Covenantor

The architects have repeatedly stated that they designed it to withstand the impact of a fully-loaded 707.

That said, some reports have estimated peak temperatures at the WTC during the fires at 1400C. I am unaware of any material available at the time of construction that could have been used to insulate the steel or concrete from thermal failure at this temperature.


14 posted on 04/05/2005 10:30:42 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Covenantor

And, yes, the fuel-air-explosive effect would have blown much of any theoretical fireproofing off the material it was protecting.


15 posted on 04/05/2005 10:31:37 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"However, Shyam Sunder, who led NIST's fire and safety investigation, said there are now better ways to ensure that fireproofing adheres to steel."

There may be "better" ways, but there is NO way any attached fireproofing will stay adhered to steel against a 500 mph spray of airplane parts.

The only thing that would have saved what was left of the towers, in my estimation, would have been a gargantuan active fire suppression system, such as tons and tons of baking soda pressurized by inert gas and water.

Doubt if such a system of that magnitude would ever be installed in a skyscraper.

16 posted on 04/05/2005 10:51:06 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Spktyr; Bommer; glaseatr; Covenantor
Man you guys got It so right. This kind of stuff is maddening when you read it.

Yes most people do not understand there is no such thing as 'fire proof, earthquake proof' and such.

Like when the media was insinuating the steel had melted, the building would have failed long long before the steel 'melted'.

Its totally ridiculous. If we had to build everything to something that a 1400' tall building can withstand a fully fulled 767, (well over 50k lbs of fuel at 300+ kts) impacting, penetrating and burning, we cant afford to build anything. That would be equivalent to making all structures nuclear proof.
17 posted on 04/05/2005 10:55:01 PM PDT by skybolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csn vinnie
Vinne, say for assumption that was true. Then how would they get the planes that low?
18 posted on 04/05/2005 11:02:16 PM PDT by skybolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: skybolt

Now that I read the article my take has changed on it.


19 posted on 04/05/2005 11:21:26 PM PDT by skybolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bommer; MeekOneGOP; PhilDragoo; Happy2BMe; Smartass; potlatch; ntnychik; DoughtyOne; ...


- Only three (3) small bolts held each lightweight truss in place

- Two (2) at one end

- Only one (1) at the other end

Less high-strength bolts then fasten the front crossmember on your PU!

When each lightweight truss failed - it could no longer keep the outer perimeter verticle steel from bowing out - then each trusses next to it would fail on each side -

The WTC design was for one reason only - to save money on construction materials and labor and provide more leaseable floor space

The architect was a moron.

The engineers were morons.

Besides failure from dinky lightweight trusses - NYC had OKed cutting the number of elevators and the required solid walls around the elevators and stairs.

"More income" was the reason.

The City of NY and the engineers, architect, builders, Enviro-Nutzie groups, owner would have been tried and found negligent in many other countries.

NYC is not a city where you want to cut safety factors - There is plenty of "cutting" already.

My brother is a construction engineer and contractor - when the WTC got hit in 1993 - recall how long it took for employees to get out then? - I told him it would be hit again and both towers would fail -



For another example in lousy engineering - check out the Greenwich CT Thruway Mianus Bridge failure in the early 1980's - excusers said "time" was a factor - corrupt state (non)inspectors and an idiotic design were the cause -


Yet the old Brooklyn Bridge still stays up.

The Empire State Building took a big hit years ago - it still stands tall.


The WTC was built of bailing wire and cardboard and greed.



20 posted on 04/05/2005 11:23:29 PM PDT by devolve (WWII : http://pro.lookingat.us/RealHeros.html James Bond - 007 : http://pro.lookingat.us/007.5.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson