Why wasn't the WTC designed for the events of 9/11?

Question

"To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of fire from such an aircraft, and no design was prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." WTC Chief Engineer Leslie Robertson

Answer 1

I don't think anyone thought that the attacks would ever happen.  It just didn't compute at the time the WTC was built.

Answer 2

No one foresaw such a terrorist attack in the 1970's when the towers were built. Everyone was more afraid of a nuclear war.

The buildings were designed to handle being hit by the largest airliners back then, but not against more modern planes packed with jet fuel being intentionally crashed into the towers.  

Answer 3

That building was designed for the ability to come down the way it did.  The design was a success.  You could not take a building to the heights that it was with the weight structure of say the empire state building.  

Answer 4

The best case to support your question and suggestion is the Samuel Byck case out of Baltimore airport who planned to hijack a commercial airliner in 1972 and crash it into the White House because some bureaucratic decision maker denied a government business loan to this mentally ill character.  As you may be aware, Byck was not able to get off the ground due to the bravery of police and most especially an airline attendant on who stopped him.   Why did the designers fail?   Because human beings do not have perfect vision of the possible disasters before them.  

Answer 5

I have seen shows, listened to professors where I attended college discuss it, and talked to several structural engineers about the topic of the WTC - I majored in civil engineering and now do structural engineering for a living.  Based on all that, here is my response:

The "fireproofing" if you want to call it that (really a misnomer, you can't really fireproof, or earthquake-proof, or wind-proof anything) used in the WTC was spray-on stuff applied to the steel structural members in the buildings during construction.  When the planes hit the buildings, the force literally blew off the fireproofing material, leaving the steel that was not directly damaged by the plane crash susceptible to the excessive heat resulting from the burning jet fuel.  That is why the steel members failed - steel loses its strength when it is heated, and the buildings subsequently collapsed.

Answer 6

Their crystal ball was on CNBC that day.

Answer 7

When the Cave man discovered fire....Why didn't he invent a fire extinguisher?

Answer 8

They were designed to take a direct hit from the largest aircraft at the time they were built.  They apparently did not design them to be able to have fire extinguished in a short amount of time.  I remember when OKC happened and everyone was upset that the Murrah building was not designed like the WTC.  The Murrah building was only 9 stories tall and designed to take on tornadoes, not aircraft.  It is probably unreasonable to expect buildings designed and built in the 1970's to be able to withstand the types of destruction that occurs now.  

Answer 9

Jet fuel? That's a good 1.

Answer 10

oh dear,oh dear.

your arrogance is getting the better of you.

those pamphlets your paymasters gave you are not accurate, both towers were built to withstand aircraft collision following a general panic in 70s new york.

also,your lie defending chiefs got one thing messed up.there was no central shaft in the structure of the building.

fire in elevator shafts ?,i think not.24 elevators in each tower and none of them complete.

there was no shaft going the length of the tower.i know because i've BEEN THERE, a*****e.

so,steel melting from intense heat ?. funny that,your friends produced a passport allegedly belonging to one of the hijackers.

heat brings down not one,not two,but three non-central shaft steel/concrete cross-girder buildings (for the first time in architctural history) but we still get the little gun totin' arab's passport.

do me a favour,my friend.you're having me on.

why are you defending global fascists intent on subjugating anyone with a different point of view ?,what do you stand to gain from their lies ?

9/11 was an inside job.

Answer 11

Actually it came out right after 9/11 that the terrorists knew that it had not been designed to withstand a Boeing 767.  What is was designed to withstand was "the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707.  In the 1970's, results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour."

Answer 12

Because 1. New York is a no fly zone, which is why if you fly into one of the NY airports or Newark, you fly around the city. 2. You can't prepare for an aircraft coming in at full speed when designing a building.  

Answer 13

Because who would inticipate anything like that. Is your House designed to with-stand a crash from anything. Im sure it isnt.

Answer 14

He's a liar and so you must be, too. It was structured to withstand high winds and fires but not designed to withstand small nuclear devices that pulverized concrete, melted steel , created radiation in holes in the ground from where supports had been that were still "hot" after 6 months and the building wasn't designed to withstand demolition bombs set on every 7th floor to bring down the building.  Fire from airplane fuel couldn't do all that.

You need to get a clue and look at some YouTube videos and get your head out of your behind.

Answer 15

Uhhh, lemme get this straight. Why wasn't the WTC designed to have a fully-fueled 747 fly into it?! Probably the same reason it wasn't designed to survive a meteorite strike or alien attack. It never occurred to anyone to design for a plane.

And even if it had occurred to someone, one answer is in your question...there *were* no fireproofing systems in existence to control a fire from tons of jet fuel released inside a high-rise. The WTC was designed with a central steel column, which is an extremely effective way to design that kind of building. Incredibly strong, but it allows it to move in response to wind, which exerts huge amounts of pressure on a building that size. But a huge, long-lasting fire can soften steel (not melt it, like someone said above). And when it's softened over multiple floors for a long time, it's going to start to collapse.

Unfortunately, we plan for the most likely, and sometimes that makes us vulnerable to the extremely unlikely.

Answer 16

I guess cuz it was the symbol of trade and commerce in the US.  

Answer 17

There was actually a spray-on flame retardant chemical on all of the steel in the frame of the building.  That was meant to make sure the steel wouldn't melt in a normal fire so the building wouldn't collapse.

What they DIDN'T plan for was airplanes with full tanks of gas flying full speed into the buildings.  The impact of the collision knocked much of the flame retardant off of the steel, and the resulting gas fire burned too hot for the flame retardant to stop anyway.

If you know a relatively inexpensive and efficient way to make sure a building doesn't fall when a 767 with a full tank of gas hits it at full speed, igniting gas fires that burn at extremely high temperatures, please let some engineers know.  You will make a fortune.

Answer 18

who would have predicted that a group of evil b*****ds would hijack passenger aircraft and then fly them into office blocks

i think the world did not comprehend the lengths these religious fanatics would go to