Comment: Are they?

(See in situ)


Are they?

because a quick trip through google turns up lots of things claiming that they are *not* building buildings to the same specifications, in direct response to the NIST analysis of WTC. Of course you can say that they had to do this because anything else would mean openly questioning the NIST analysis. But it does take the wind out of the sails of the "they're still building buildings to the same specifications" argument.

Some of the links I found collected here for posterity.

http://architecture.about.com/od/structural/a/Did-9-11-Chang...
http://www.buildings.com/article-details/article-details1/ar...

The new provisions address many areas relating to design, construction, and emergency egress from tall buildings, such as increasing structural resilience to building collapse from fire and incidents, requiring a third stairway for tall buildings, increasing width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises, calling for luminous markings delineating exit paths in buildings more than 75-feet tall to facilitate rapid egress and full building evacuation, and a host of other recommendations relating to construction and emergency response.

More at the iccsafe.org (International Code Council) site, including discussions like this:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Documents/WTC/resource/WTC_Sch...
Use the search box to search for WTC and it will turn up quite a few things.

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Documents/2006-07cycle/Propo...

The proponents believe that a Class III combustible liquid distribution system was implicated in the WTC 7 collapse and that the soon to be released WTC 7 report will so find. This proposal recognizes the necessity for elective redundant power and seeks to regulate storage and distribution of Class II and Class III combustible liquids in high rise and other buildings while protecting against the risks associated with such use.

Tons more if anyone is interested.