NYTimes: Investigation of Towers' Fall Is Criticized

[KurtNYC]

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 - The three-year federal investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center failed to sufficiently identify specific changes needed in building codes to ensure that skyscrapers and other tall buildings can better handle a future terrorist attack or even a more routine emergency, members of Congress said Wednesday.

As a result, said Republicans and Democrats on the House Science Committee, the efforts to improve skyscraper safety in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack are moving far too slowly, a situation that they say the federal government and those in charge of establishing national building codes have a moral obligation to correct....

The criticism emerged at a hearing during which the National Institute of Standards and Technology formally released its final report on the collapse of the twin towers, a $16 million study that has produced more than 10,000 pages of findings detailing exactly why the towers were able to stand after being hit by planes, but ultimately collapsed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/politics/27codes.html

No secret can exist without a lie(s) to cover it. Plenty of fodder in that article for MIHOP. Says they want specific details -- but of course, how would "better communications" systems prevent a tower from collapsing?

I notice they also balk at the cost of some of the recommendations so far citing, "How many building collapses have there been, ever?"

[spooked911]

1. yes, but the criticism is about building code recommendations and money

not the fact that they covered up that the towers fell from controlled demolition

[Informed Citizen]

2. yes, but the story fits the alternate view in which...

they would be having a hard time making recommendations, when there is no precedent, and the NIST report very specifically indicates that the building would only have fallen at the outer-most extremes of their assessment of likely conditions. So it had never happened before, and was highly unlikely to have happened at all. So they unofficially recommend building tall structures so they won't collapse. ...? Truth is, its never gunna happen again, and they really don't have a serious critique to offer other than improving the durability of fire retardant foam insulation. Whatever they do come up with will have to be highly general. They had little evidence to review. They've got nothing to work with and not much to say.

- I.C.

[philb]

3. The extent of radio problems appears to be exagerated for some reason

The firemen in their statements said they heard calls on the radios in both towers. Apparently only WTC1 had any problems, and even there the firemen were saying they got messages on the radios- though there does appear to have been some problems.