Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Jed, you have said more than once that (nearly)
all the expert engineers /knew/ it would collapse.
That's absolutely not what I read in the mainstream press reports . . .
These reports were premature, and wrong. Later
interviews and testimony by experts revealed that
most of them expected the Towers to fall.
: The buildings were capable of taking a hit
from a good sized jet with a certain amount of jet fuel on board.
No, they were "designed" for circa 1970 jets
coming in for a landing at LaGuardia at low
speed. Modern jets are much larger and these were
going much faster than landing speed. Actually,
little serious consideration was paid to this
possibility, and modern computer modeling was not available. Quoting NIST:
"As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a
document from the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of
a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was
analyzed during the design stage of the WTC
towers. However, NIST investigators were unable
to locate any documentation of the criteria and
method used in the impact analysis and,
therefore, were unable to verify the assertion
that
such collision would result in only local
damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of
the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the
ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the
structure is a recent development. Since the
approach to structural modeling was developed for
the NIST WTC investigation, the technical
capability available to the PANYNJ and its
consultants and contactors to perform such
analyses in the 1960s would have been quite
limited in comparison to the capabilities brought
to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767
aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a
Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. . . ."
Whether what actually happened was a big
enough wallop to bring them down was _not_ _obvious_, to _anyone_.
As I said, several experts later testified that
they knew the buildings would fall. They were
also interviewed in the Discovery Channel documentaries.
Opinions as to whether they would fall or not
were little more than guesses, as far as I can tell.
Incorrect. These were carefully considered
conclusions rendered by world-class experts.
Actually, they were surprised that the towers held up as long as they did.
Again, I seriously doubt your repeated
assertions that "all the experts" were convinced
the buildings _WOULD_ collapse after the planes hit.
I suggest you read the official documents from NIST and elsewhere.
That's tantamount to saying the people running
the show on the ground really screwed up
bigtime by not evacuating, and I don't think it's called for . . .
Not just tantamount; that is exactly what the
experts asserted. One of them, from Britain, says
he tried frantically to contact the New York City
police to tell them to evacuate, but he could not
get through. There is no question that the people
"running the show really screwed up bigtime." If
they had panicked less than listened more
carefully to expert advice, they would have known
that the police and firemen could do nothing and
should be ordered out of the building. The police
and firemen died in vain. Particularly after the
first building collapsed no one should have doubted the other would soon fall.
We do not like to think about heroes dying in
vain. It makes an awful tragedy seem even worse,
somehow. The history books seldom mention such
outcomes, even though they are common. For
example, I read a careful analysis of major
Allied airborne troops deployments in the
invasion of Europe -- at D-Day, the crossing of
the Rhine River, and Market Garden. The analysis
shows that they contributed little or nothing to
the operations. These operations would probably
have succeeded (or failed, in the latter case)
without the airborne troops. Tremendous resources
were used to supply these troops with enough
aircraft, fuel and equipment, and the troops
suffered disproportionately high casualties, but
alas, they were not very effective.
- Jed
