March 29, 2002
Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled in the twin towers on Sept. 11 in the face of a blaze so intense that it drove temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees and generated heat equivalent to the energy output of a nuclear power plant, a federal report on how the towers fell has concluded.
The fire, combined with these failures, brought down the towers even after they had shown surprising and lifesaving resiliency to massive structural damage caused by the impact of two hijacked airliners, the report says.
The report's findings detail for the first time the horrific series of events that led to the collapse of two of the world's tallest buildings. They are contained in a draft of a report commissioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The draft describes a structure that showed both remarkable strength and critical weaknesses. As was obvious to television viewers worldwide, the towers sustained the initial impact of the planes. But the buildings were able to redistribute loads away from damaged columns so well that they could probably have remained standing indefinitely if not for the fires, an earthquake or a windstorm, the report said. Team members are still debating the delicate question of whether the tremendous fires could have brought the towers down on their own.
"The ability of the two towers to withstand aircraft impact without immediate collapse was a direct function of their design and construction characteristics, as was the vulnerability of the two towers to collapse as a result of the combined effects of the impacts and ensuing fires," the report concludes.
The report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, is not due to be released officially until late April or early May. It provides documentary evidence that simultaneously supports and rejects many of the theories about what happened to the towers on Sept. 11.
What is already clear is that the jet fuel played a role somewhat different, though still critical, than some experts had speculated. 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.
Under normal circumstances, fire suppression systems are designed to allow a high-rise blaze to burn itself out before the building collapses. But the report concludes that there were across-the-board failures in the towers' fire suppression systems, raising disturbing questions about the safety and integrity of other tall buildings in out-of-control fires. But the ultimate significance of those failures is extremely difficult to gauge, the report says, because of the extraordinary circumstances of the attack.
In fact, besides just setting the fires, the impact of the jets may have jarred loose the light, fluffy fireproofing that had been sprayed on steel columns, and flying debris almost certainly sliced through the vertical pipes that supplied water for the hoses and sprinklers.
Because of those uncertainties, the report says, building codes and engineering practices should be studied extensively to consider changes, a step the federal government is already planning, with a $16 million two-year inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology now getting under way. The final version of the FEMA report may recommend specific changes in building codes and standards.
The report is also significant for what it does not include. With the exception of a few contorted steel beams from 5 World Trade Center, a nine-story office building that also burned and had localized collapses because the beams failed where they were bolted together, little evidence collected from the piles of debris contributed in a meaningful way to the report's conclusions.
That absence could intensify criticism of an early decision by the city to recycle steel from the trade center rather than make it immediately available for collection and analysis by the research team. About 60 pieces of trade center steel are being sent to the technology institute for the investigation, so future analysis could provide additional answers.
The draft report also does not contain any discussion of what could become a contentious new issue in attempts to explain why the south tower, though struck after the north tower, fell first. That question involves a program, started after the 1993 bombing of the towers, to increase the thickness of the fireproofing on the lightweight steel joists that held up the floors.
At the time of the attack, 18 floors on the north tower and 13 floors in the south tower had been upgraded, by increasing the thickness of the fireproofing from three-quarters of an inch to an inch and a half. As it happened, the planes hit floors in the north tower where fireproofing thickness had already been increased, and floors in the south that had not been upgraded — with one exception, the 78th floor.
Team members are carefully debating what role that difference may have played in the length of time the towers stood after impact: 56 minutes, 10 seconds for the south tower and 102 minutes, 5 seconds for the north. But there are several other possible explanations. The plane that struck the south tower was moving at least 100 miles an hour faster than the other one, heightening the energy upon impact. And it hit 10 floors lower, resulting in far more weight from above bearing down on the damaged area.
Whatever its thickness, much of the fireproofing was probably dislodged by the impact of the planes, the investigators concluded. One official knowledgeable about the fireproofing said the woolly, mineral-based material could be brushed away with the wipe of a finger.
The term "disabled" is somewhat misleading and confusing IMO. The author's description above leads to more uncertainty.