New report says Twin Towers did not collapse because of structural flaws

AP | 10/22/02

[kattracks]

NEW YORK (AP) -- A new report commissioned by the leaseholder of the World Trade Center site has concluded that the twin towers did not collapse because of flaws in their structural design.

The study, reported Tuesday by The New York Times, said the damage caused by the planes, and the fires that broke out as a result, caused both buildings to fall during the terrorist attacks.

The report's analysis contradicts the findings of an earlier federal investigation, which said the World Trade Center's unconventional design contributed to their collapse. The federal study said the towers' weak floor supports gave way during the attacks, triggering a collapse of the entire building.

The Manhattan engineering firm that analyzed the collapse, Weidlinger Associates, used a computer program to recreate the terrorist attacks. The engineers found that the fires and the overwhelming heat that spread through the towers made the collapse inevitable, the Times said.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the trade center property, paid for the study as part of his $4 billion insurance lawsuit.

Silverstein has argued that that two planes hit the twin towers in separate occurrences, entitling him to a $7 billion double payment. The insurance companies in the suit say he should be paid half that amount.

Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Tall_Texan]

You just had to guess a lawsuit would be behind such a study. It one wants to claim that the two buildings being hit and collapsing were separate incidents, what to make of the *third* WTC building that also collapsed after the other two fell? No plane crashed into that building.

Whichever way the suit turns out, it doesn't change the fact that both buildings did fall. And I don't fault the designers, the architects or the construction one bit. Had those building fallen over instead of collapsing into themselves, the death toll and devastation would have been much worse. And the buildings would have had to be torn down anyway. Who wants two burned-out hulls standing tall above the New York skyline?

The buildings were doomed the minute the planes hit them with all that jet fuel.

[ambrose]

I had read some reports wherein it was speculated that there could have been a domino effect collapse of many Manhattan skyscrapers if the WTC had fallen over rather than implod as it did.

[DoughtyOne]

Here's some interesting reading on the subject of high rise fires.  This PDF report addresses the May 4, 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in downtown Los Angeles.  This was a structural fire in a 62 floor office building.  Four floors were destroyed, a fifth seriously damaged.

While the fire grew, security personnel kept turning off fire alarms rather than accept that an incident was occurring.  One security officer burned to death when his elevator door opened into a burning inferno.

Structural considerations during this fire, should have sounded alarm bells for any high rise in this nation.  The fear of collapse alone should have alerted emergency preparedness personnel across our nation to the need to evacuate any structure that developed a hot fire inside their structure.  When girders become hot enough, they become unstable.  Tenants of a high-rise should NEVER be told to relax, everything is under control during a fire.  They should evacuate immediately.

This report was developed by or for FEMA.  It's conclusions should have been disbursed to every command center of a high-rise building in the nation.  That it wasn't, or that it's lessons learned were not adopted, was a major flaw in the works.

This report could have had major implications on the WTC, due to it's structural differences with the Interstate Bank building.  The WTC may have been more susceptible to collapse.  I do believe it's still open to debate, despite this reports conclusion.

[DoughtyOne]

I do believe it's still open to debate, despite this reports conclusion.

I was refering to the report mentioned in your post.

[kattracks]

I had read some reports wherein it was speculated that there could have been a domino effect collapse of many Manhattan skyscrapers if the WTC had fallen over rather than implod as it did.

I was told by someone in the NY construction business that the WTC was built to fall the way it did in order to avoid a domino effect.

[SpringheelJack]

I put about as much credit in this report as I do in the lie detector test that Gary Condit commissioned for himself.

[DoughtyOne]

I would agree with your comment, "the buildings were doomed when the planes hit." It is interesting to note that the 62 floor high rise in downtown Los Angeles (the report of which I linked above) survived and thrived after four of it's floors were completely burned out.

The key difference was the lack of jet fuel, which you noted, and made the fire burn hotter in the case of the WTC buildings.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, I don't feel much diffrently than you with regard to that report. It may be valid though.

[DoughtyOne]

I'll be honest here. I am somewhat surprised that the insurance company didn't declare this an act of war and refuse to pay off. It would also seem that there would have been a terrorism clause, or a willful act clause that would have absolved the insurance company. This having not been the case, I do think the building owner is entitled to claim two incidents of loss, one for each building.

[Conservative4Ever]

I agree with your comments..also I believe not only did the jet fuel make the fire burn hotter, but it poured down the elevator shafts thus contributing to the multiple floors being involved more quickly with fire.

Red

[DoughtyOne]

Did the owner of the two WTC Towers own the third building also? I'm not sure if he did, although that's a distinct possibility.

[DoughtyOne]

One of the problems with these buildings are the vents, shafts and conduits that go up a number of floors. In the LA FIB fire the, the flames jumped a number of floors by this method. Luckily the fire became oxygen starved on the upper level and put itself out.

[The Red Zone]

It would also seem that there would have been a terrorism clause, or a willful act clause that would have absolved the insurance company

Willful act? The building owners have no apparent role in this, unless you have a Manhattan size tin foil hat.

[DoughtyOne]

Terrorism is a willful act. It's not like an accidental fire that started and caused a collapse. It's not like a structural failure out of the blue. I did not infer that the owner was or needed to be complicit.

[The Red Zone]

So? Looked at another way, it was vandalism on a grand scale.

[Brytani]

Larry Silverstein should sue Bill Clinton and his administration for their role in the September 11 bombings.

[M. T. Cicero II]

I saw a TV program on the building known as "Walt's Whistle" (it's too early to remember the name of the building - sorry). It covered the design flaws and showed that an hurricane could knock it over causing a domino-like progression of buildings falling over. They also showed how the structure was upgraded to prevent this occurance. I'm not suprised that the TT could have caused the same thing.

[aardvark1]

Hindsight is great isn't it?

[Tea42]

"...The buildings were doomed the minute the planes hit them with all that jet fuel."

Could it be that they were doomed the minute the enviro whackos denuded the core metal structure of its fire protecting coatings?