8 April 2005. Add comments on explosives in the collapse.
6 April 2005
We attended the NIST briefing yesterday in NYC on probable causes of the WTC towers' collapse. The material presented and much more is available:
http://wtc.nist.gov
It was a very high-quality two-hour report on what appears to be an exceptionally comprehensive and informative investigation -- as NIST stated, unprecedented in scope and thoroughness.
None of the NIST recommendations have yet been implemented as a result of the investigation. Best advice from the podium: "hope no plane attack occurs, for no buildings are designed to withstand that, and it is not likely they will be."
However, it was admitted that each high-rise will have to be studied individually to determine vulnerabilities despite the NIST and other investigations.
We asked if NIST would be withholding any information due to national security concerns or due to the hazard of revealing vulnerabilities of existing high-rises. Answer: no.
That would be a refreshing change from other governmental studies of the 9/11 attack all of which have elected to withhold information from the public as well as design professionals.
NIST promised to send us more information on the team's methodoloy, information gathering, and public dissemination.
Related topic:
There appeared to be few architects present at the briefing, perhaps none besides we two. And there was no recommendation by the local AIA to attend the briefing if for no other reason than for continuing education, which is regrettable for the excellent material far surpassed the banal, inept, demoralizing, back-slapping continuing ed offerings at the AIA.
Inattention to the NIST investigation is more evidence that there is likely a scandal brewing about continuing ed of architect, due to the excreable CE offerings, the shallow product promotionals, the vanity showings of mediocre work, the variable credits for mandatory education, particularly for HSW (health, safety and welfare).
No notable architects have been seen at the AIA offerings and it is probable they are being given credit for attending private offerings at their firms, either by their own staff, by consultants or by vendors. Perhaps they credit themselves though that is supposed to be prohibited unless certified as a CE provider.
It is inexcusable that the NIST presentation was overlooked, for what could be more relavent for HSW compared to uninformative attendance at peurile presentations of what should be seen as embarrassing projects is encouraged with the lure of free snacks and liquor and, not least, unjustified HSW credits.
My experience with continuing education over the past two registration periods is that about 10% of the offerings provide substantial education, the rest are illusionary time-wasters.
Now, I can understand if these lax standards are a honeymoon period to coax architects back to the classroom, but that should be made clear to the public, along with an account of when the standards are going to be raised to a meaningful level. Otherwise the press is going to pick up on this shoddy misrepresentation, as the kind of illusion politicians, public officials and famous architects commonly exhibit in lieu of competency and accountability, not only at the WTC long-term negligence and now rebuilding.
With other states who require continuting education as a condition of registration, the New York State Board for Architecture needs to assess continuing ed at the AIA, private offerings within offices, and anywhere else non-compliant, and worse, self-certified, lousy continuing education is being passed off as the real thing so greatly needed.
John Young
Natsios-Young Architects
Tel: 212-873-8700
cc: wtc@nist.gov, michael.newman@nist.gov, archbd@mail.nysed.gov
John Young on the collapse written on the day of the attack, September 11, 2001:
http://cryptome.org/wtc-collapse.htm
Are you not yet convinced that WTC-1, -2 and -7 were demolished with explosives?
John Young: I'm agnostic on explosives. NIST was questioned closely about this at the public briefing by two persons and said there has been no evidence found on any salvaged members for the use of explosives -- neither explosive residues of any kind nor any physical ruptures characteristic of explosives.
However, NIST said the use of explosives cannot be definitively excluded, for that would be like proving a negative. It was emphasized that the probable cause of collapse is explainable without resorting to explosives, including reports of thuds during the collapse and explosive-like bursts of debris, both caused by the rapid pancaking of the floors. Some time was given to explaining how those occurred in detail.
NIST said it was reported that there was a small amount of unidentified explosive material stored by some government agency in one of the three buildings but none of that material was discovered in the remains of the towers' structure.
NIST admitted that it did not have access to all of the debris, that it gained access a year afterwards, and after some debris had been sold as scrap to foreign buyers. However, investigators before NIST examined some of that material soon after the attack and claimed to have found no evidence of explosion, only ruptures characteristic of structural failure.
Finally, NIST cautioned that it awaits comments on its various drafts, and information may still arrive to be included in the final report later this year. And cautioned also that with investigations this complicated there is always a chance that vital information was not discovered, leaving only the best analysis possible with the information known.
I found the NIST people more persuasive, due to their thoroughness, skepticism, open-mindedness, caution and welcome for better and superceding analyses, than those who have rushed to judgment seeking definitive answers which may be wrong if satisfying, perhaps because too satisfying, too neat, too unwilling to entertain doubt, especially those who were responsible for allowing the attack to occur, and those who have benefited from it.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is reported by the New York Times to claim NIST is wrong.