By Catherine Hartwell
Most people know the details by heart: On Sept. 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 lives were lost when the two World Trade Center towers collapsed. An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) examined the collapse in detail, resulting in findings and recommendations for further action.
As part of its seminar series on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Christian Regenhard Center for Emergency Response Studies (RaCERS) at John Jay College in New York convened an extraordinary panel of professionals to provide a behind-the-scenes reflection on the contentious process behind the investigation and a look back at the results — and the missed opportunities.
A logical response to documenting and investigating the World Trade Center attack was the result of political pressure and overcame official resistance from many quarters. For example, the formation of the 9/11 Commission was heavily resisted by the Bush administration; also, no after-action reports on 9/11 were released by the largest response agencies, the FDNY and the NYPD.
The RaCERS panel consisted of:
- Glenn Corbett, a fire protection engineer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice;
- Jake Pauls, an expert in pedestrian movement and evacuation;
- James Quintiere, a fire protection engineer at the University of Maryland; and
- Scott Knowles, a history professor at Drexel University.
The history of disaster investigations
Knowles began by presenting on the history of society’s response to investigating disasters, going back to the 1800s and ending with 9/11.
Quoting from his newly published book, “The Disaster Experts: Mastering Risk in Modern America,” Knowles made it clear that investigations emerge as a complex interaction of the people and institutions involved and that professionals looking at various aspects of these events seldom reached unanimous conclusions as to responsibility or sometimes even causes.
These professional disagreements have been seized on by a broad range of conspiracy theorists to impugn the various investigations and advance alternative theories about the collapse.
Issues around WTC fireproofing
Quintiere discussed the NIST investigation and the disagreement over the role of fireproofing in the collapse. The fireproofing was changed during the construction process, after asbestos concerns became prominent, and documentation of both the testing done on the new materials at the time of installation and the status of the fireproofing as installed are poor and contested.
This contentious issue revolves around the role of the jetliners in dislodging fireproofing around structural components (floor trusses and columns) and the performance characteristics of the spray-on fireproofing on trusses throughout the buildings. Quintiere believes “the building came down because there was not enough insulation on the trusses” and that additional testing was necessary.
Quintiere also took issue with the assumption regarding fuel loading on the fire floors, saying he thinks there were heavier fuel loads present than NIST has assumed, due to quantities of paper used by insurance companies in the building.
A political football
Corbett told of his experience in the aftermath of 9/11, the criticism of the fact that there was initially to be no investigation of the response to 9/11, and the inadequate funding and scope of the FEMA-funded Building Performance Assessment Team report, which was completed in 2002.
In response to criticisms led by groups such as the Skyscraper Safety Campaign (advised by three of the panelists), this tragic event ultimately led to the NIST investigation, with full authority and a budget of $16 million to investigate what caused the towers to fall. Their main focus was to assess building design and construction, but also included the response of emergency personnel and how the buildings were evacuated.
Pauls provided an extensive review of the history of pedestrian movement research, starting in 1935, and a critique of the state of building evacuation research today. Because of a lack of funding, NIST’s history involves never more than a few researchers focused on the area in both the United States and Canada.
Pauls described the Congressional hearing in which NIST was asked to include the evacuation and emergency response in its World Trade Center investigation. “When they said they could do it with the existing resources, I knew that it would not receive adequate attention.”
He criticized the NIST report for not using historical research and not fully reporting the dimensions of the exits as-built in the WTC or the issue of exit remoteness. Pauls cited the 1993 WTC bombing, and the fact that there was no major study of the evacuation of all occupants undertaken following the largest high-rise building evacuation ever.
After 9/11, Pauls was instrumental in co-organizing an informal group known as the World Trade Center Evacuation Study Initiative (WTC/ESI).
An initial WTC/ESI meeting at John Jay College in 2001 brought in professionals from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. The attendees, which included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIST, were interested in conducting research on evacuation and occupant movement during an incident.
Ultimately, the CDC funded a study of the WTC evacuation, performed by Columbia University, whose personnel did not work with most of the fire and evacuation experts who helped conceptualize and secure funding for the study.
Wrapping up
Corbett closed with a discussion of the motivation and lobbying for passage for the National Construction Safety Team Act, which was passed in 2002 and gave NIST expanded authority to investigate major structural failures or events.
Despite NIST having subpoena power and the ability to initiate an investigation 48 hours after an event, Corbett, a former member of its Advisory Panel, lamented the agency’s unwillingness to use its full authority and the slow pace at which it undertakes investigations. He cited the recent Joplin, Mo., tornadoes, in which NIST, after sending a reconnaissance effort, formally established a full team some 30 days after the event.
Scott Knowles moderated a lively question session following the presentations.
Sally Regenhard, Christian Regenhard’s mother, attended the event and recalled coming to John Jay faculty Glenn Corbett and Charles Jennings after they were quoted in an October 2001 New York Daily News article calling for an outside investigation into the World Trade Center collapse. She later founded the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an advocacy group that helped lobby for the NIST investigation, the 9/11 Commission and the National Construction Safety Team Act, among others.
Considerable discussion on the issue of fireproofing and the mechanisms of collapse in the World Trade Center ensued, including several challenges posed by the audience.
Issues of elevator use for egress, both their potential role in future buildings and the challenges of implementing such systems, were also discussed.
In summary, the event provided an enlightening and authoritative peek into the complex, dynamic process behind decisions to undertake the investigation, as well as limitations on the actions that took place.
Catherine Hartwell is a graduate research assistant with the Christian Regenhard Center for Emergency Response Studies (RaCERS) and is pursuing her master’s degree in emergency management at John Jay College.