by Byrne » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:17 pm
<br>From <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy78961.000/hsy78961_1.HTM" target="top">commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy78961.000/hsy78961_1.HTM</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I think this excerpt is from the US Congress House Committee on Science, WTC hearing in 2002. <br><br>Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President CTL Engineering, Chicago, Illinois, speaking on behalf of the American society of civil engineers, chair of building performance assessment team reviewing the World Trade Center disaster.<br><br>In 1995, Gene was selected by ASCE to lead a Building Performance Assessment Team investigating the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In September 2001, he served as a team member to evaluate performance of the Pentagon, and was selected to head the team to study building performance after the attack on New York’s World Trade Center. (See <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.ctlgroup.com/staff_detail.asp?consultant_id=14" target="top">www.ctlgroup.com/staff_detail.asp?consultant_id=14</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> )<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>WTC Building 7</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Now, Building 7 is a building that, I guess, coincidentally, stayed standing for 7 hours. What did we learn about that building and why it was able to endure the fire for 7 hours? I would first like to know how it caught on fire.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. I will address that question. First of all, in discussing with the New York City Fire Department, we determined and concluded that it started on fire after or as Building 2 collapsed, that there was debris from that building that was propelled into Building 7 and that the fire started at that time.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. And in some cases that debris could have had aircraft fuel on it and so on. Were these lighted timbers that——<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. No. We think it was building contents that was propelled over there.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Okay.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. That by the time Building 2 collapsed——<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Okay.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY [continuing]. The aircraft fuel would not have——<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Okay.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY [continuing]. Been there anymore. It would have been consumed by that time. Then, from that point on——<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. And how tall a building?<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. It is 47 stories——<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Wow.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY [continuing]. For Building 7. It is a big building. The fire that we were able to follow from that point on was throughout the building, but it was particularly of long duration in the lower floors around where the very large transfer elements, trusses and beams and columns, were located. This building had to be built with a very random spacing of foundations because of what was there before it.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Was it a pretty traditional type building, unlike the two towers?<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. Above the transfer area was a very traditional building. At the transfer area in the lower floors, over the substation for Com-Ed, it had these enormous trusses that took the loads and brought them to the columns. That is the area where the fire burned for a long period of time, and it does result in one of our recommendations. And that is for key elements of that where the collapse of an element might result in the collapse of an entire building. We recommend that they be reviewed to see if they should have longer fire duration for those elements than would be necessary in the rest of the building.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. And now, my understanding is, in the case of Building 7, there was no water pressure because of the breaking of water mains and so on, with the collapse of the towers. Is that correct?<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. That is what we determined. That it, Building 7, collapsed prior to the time they were able to get the water pressure back up to higher levels. They didn't really get it up to normal levels, but at least got some water pressure back.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. And the water we were taking out of the Hudson River, we were trying to put into the debris on the towers to try to get people out, get them out alive.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. Yes.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. So what we have, though, is this incredible case study. When do you burn a 47—when do you allow a building 47 stories tall to just burn until it collapses? So there are tremendous lessons to be learned about structures from these buildings in particular.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. Yes. We put a great deal of emphasis on Building 7 in our report, and we conclude that we have an understanding, we believe, of how it performed, but that we need to pin down what the source of fuel was that allowed it to burn that long.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Now, I don't know the answer to this question. But, maybe I should. How many people, it is thought, were killed in that building. Did most get out?<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. We were not able to determine that there were any fatalities in that building. There may have been, but we could not determine that there were.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. But minimal compared to, obviously, elsewhere.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. Yes.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. And so that should be some reassurance to people if they are in a building, a more typical building on fire, that they do have time to get out of the building.<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. Oh, yes. We believe that without the damage that occurred to the two towers, that buildings will perform—will stand up for a significant period of time without collapse, with the fire requirements that are there now.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Now, are you able to determine if you did have proper water pressure and so on, whether that you could have prevented the fire from consuming the building?<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. We looked into that, discussed it quite a lot. And while we did not make a strong statement in the report—it was really beyond the scope of what we were doing—we do believe if it had been fought, they could have put it out, and if they could have put it out, that there would not have been that risk of collapse to that building.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Now, I have a particular bias that the actions against us weren't criminal acts, they were acts of war, acts of terror. And I kind of bristle when I think of our treating this as a criminal act in which we have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone did it and they were at the scene or whatever you need to deal with in a crime. But there are—I have constituents who are interested in knowing, given that it is technically a criminal site. I have constituents who are interested to know how we can justify beginning to build on that site. Is it that all the debris is entirely taken away and so therefore there is no evidence at the site that is helpful?<br><br> Dr. CORLEY. I am not an expert in the legal side of it, but you are, indeed, correct, that the debris will soon have been all removed and that there would not be a substantial amount of information there that I would anticipate would be useful in any trial.<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Sir, I want to—and since there are only two of us, do you want me to go? Or do you want to go and then I will come back. I have about 10 more minutes of questions at the most, then I will be done.<br><br> Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. All right. Let me go. Just a couple very——<br><br> Mr. SHAYS. Can I just say, Mr. Chairman, that your staff has written some incredible questions that I do think we need to put on the record. And I hope you don't underestimate the value of your great staff.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
