Steel not seen as Factor in WTC Collapse

Associated Press ^ | 8/27/2003

[sinkspur]

GAITHERSBURG, Md. (AP) - Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said Wednesday.

Engineers with the National Institute of Standards and Technology have conducted preliminary tests on some of the 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, said Frank Gayle, who is leading NIST's review of the steel.

The tests found that, typical for construction steel used in the 1960s when the World Trade Center was erected, the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch. Often they were capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch.

``What that is showing us is that the steel that was applied certainly met the specifications, but was also significantly higher in some instances,'' lead investigator Shyam Sunder said.

A group of victims' families, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, had complained that a majority of the beams from the site were quickly shipped off and reprocessed into new steel before it could be tested.

Sunder cautioned the NIST's results were preliminary, but said if those findings continue in further testing, that would rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.

The steel testing was discussed Wednesday at the end of a two-day meeting with NIST officials about the Sept. 11 investigation.

The two-year probe is designed to create a model of the fire and collapse, enabling NIST, which is part of the Commerce Department, to make recommendations for improved fire and safety codes in building construction.

The Skyscraper Safety Campaign's Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the site, said she doubted NIST's findings.

``I don't really feel that they have a representative sample of all the steel,'' Regenhard said.

James Quintieri, a professor at the University of Maryland who is consulting with the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, said key questions, about the steel's strength under intense heat, and the overall design of the building, remain unanswered.

In coming months, NIST will recreate sections of the building's floor trusses, and conduct large-scale fire endurance tests on them to determine how the floors of the towers responded to the twin stresses of impact by a jet plane and a continuing fire.

The NIST group also discussed its investigation of the Rhode Island nightclub fire last February, which killed 100 people. Investigators will use the results of their investigation to make recommendations for improvements to fire and building codes.

At the meeting, some complained investigators were being delayed by prosecutors and civil lawyers denying them access to critical information, including the exact makeup of the soundproofing foam that burst into flames at the nightclub.

Lead investigator Bill Grosshandler said his team has to date gathered only about 20 percent of the information on the makeup of different materials in the building, but said it was still early in the fact-gathering process.

Others, including NIST's Dr. Jack Snell, seemed frustrated with the agency's access to information. The investigation is proceeding under an act of Congress passed last year aimed to use NIST expertise to probe building disasters.

``The whole motivation for this law was timely investigations,'' said Snell. ``We're not doing timely investigations.''

[Poohbah]

I suppose you have to test for everything.

Bottom line: when a big airplane hits a building at high speed, that building isn't going to stand for very long.

[TomServo]

I guess I haven't been keeping up. I was under the impression that the steel failed due to the heat. That it melted.

[FreedomPoster]

Especially not when a jet fuel fire is creating expansion stresses on the joints that no one could have reasonably designed for.

[Liberal Classic]

I'm certianly no expert, but from what I understand it wasn't the impact that caused the buildings to fail but the heat from the fire.

[Lazamataz]

I guess I haven't been keeping up. I was under the impression that the steel failed due to the heat. That it melted.

Forensic engineer: "Hold on. Hold on. You're telling me there was heat?"

[Poohbah]

Yup.

Of course, if that plane had hit my car instead, it would've done about $1,000 worth of improvements.

[al baby]

it was not the faliure of the steel it was the aluminum that crashed into it

[Restorer]

James Quintieri, a professor at the University of Maryland who is consulting with the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, said key questions, about the steel's strength under intense heat...remain unanswered.

Not really. Under intense heat, steel turns into a liquid. Which supports approximately 0 pounds per square inch.

[Liberal Classic]

I also remember that it wasn't the main supports, but the metal connecters that supported each floor at the outer ring of girders.

[Double Tap]

I think it was amazing that the buildings stood as long as they did after taking those two hits and the explosions and fire that resulted.

The fact that some of the victims families are money-grubbing is really starting to disgust me.

[Restorer]

I wonder if any of the engineers around here can tell us if it is even possible to build that tall a building that is still capable of standing up to this kind of trauma.

[Pro-Bush]

Kinda amazing how the Twin Towers didn't buckle and bend, and luckily they didn't topple over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather they collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition.

[RightWhale]

money-grubbing is really starting to disgust me

Yeah, the sympathy circuit shorted out already.

[Poohbah]

Yeah, they were DESIGNED to do that if they ever did collapse.

[Liberal Classic]

The sad irony of the whole affair is we gave them the idea because unfortunately the transcripts were not sealed. After this first happened I was reading about the 1993 parking garage bombing trial of bin Laden's men, and an expert witness was asked to explain why the building didn't fall. This engineer was also asked hypothetically what it would take to bring the building down and he answered an airplane full of fuel. I believe that because of the heat from the fire it is not economical to build a large skyscraper with materials that can stand such heat.

[Liberal Classic]

With boucoup disclaimers that I am not an engineer, these structures are so heavy that they can do almost nothing else but collapse in on themselves. It would take much more force than that of an airplane to knock one over.

[First_Salute]

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain a factor.

[Pro-Bush]

The architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available.

[baltodog]

You beat me to it...
I'm no engineering expert, but I think the biggest factor in the buildings' collapse was fundemental islam.