| Diatribe or Cooling
Overview?
The diatribe presented
by Nadine Post in "Skyscrapers Supporters Infuriated
by Fire Fearmongers" (ENR 6/7 p. 48) was bolstered by
Richard Schulte, a fire protection engineer, and the editorial
page of ENR, which lamented "the nation should not fall
prey to hysterics, hyperbole and hot air."
My background is 33 years in fire
research, education and investigation. I am proud to say I
am an advisor to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign.
The Skilling group examined the
structural consequences of a Boeing 707 (similar to the aircrafts
that hit the World Trade Center towers) at 600 mph hitting
a twin tower. They concluded only local damage would be sustained;
the effects of an aircraft fuel fire were not considered.
For those that think the airplane did it, it and its fuel
would only be the ignition source. The fire that occurred
is the traditional design fire condition that ASTM E119 is
supposed to simulate. Anyone examining these factors would
want to know what happened here, and how we could prevent
it again. ENR should be paying attention to that instead of
defaming the motives of two women who want to make a difference
and have been instrumental in effecting the $16 million investigation
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Nadine Posts
article provided a cooling overview of the post-9/11 fire
safety debatea debate that often seems to be generating
more heat than light.
The cover story message
is so strong it effectively shuts off all debate on the topic
of high-rise safety. The article further offers conclusive
testimony that those who disagree are uninformed complainers
having no expertise on the subject. You cited fire fatality
statistics on office fires to prove how safe they are compared
to residential properties. I agree, but this a dangerous comparison.
The potential for fatalities in high-rise offices is much
greater than for single-family dwellings.
Congratulations on
publishing one of the few articles on fire not colored by
emotion or opportunism. Nadine Posts article is rational
and fair. I was also encouraged to see Jon Magnusson and Larry
Griffis adding their voices of reason to the article as unbiased
individuals.
AISC welcomes industry and government
emphasis on advancing the state of the art in fire protection
and engineering. AISCs efforts in fire, blast and progressive
collapse had begun prior to 9/11. Keep up the good work.
|