Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Yes, it has nothing to do with your previous post. I was asking if you had any thoughts about the post.
|
Not particularly, no. I have no idea who your friend is, whether your facts are accurate or whether you have applied your analysis correctly.
I choose to believe the various independent organizations that have explained - to my satisfaction - what happened and why (as an engineering matter, not a geopolitical one). I have seen their credentials and I know what they purport to mean. You may think the entire engineering community is a farce and they don't know what they are doing, but I think you are wrong.
A few interesting things about your post that I choose not to read to much into, as I imagine it was just quick and loose writing on your part:
you say you spoke with "a number" of structural engineers, then talk only about what one of them told you. Should we infer that the others told you something else?
you do not say that the one who told you about load ratios agrees with your theory that the fire did not cause the collapse. Should we infer that he/she does not?
you also do not say whether your friend agrees with your application of the load ratio information to the WTC collapse. did you extrapolate that on your own, or did you work it through with your friend?
Also, a parting thought....
you don't mention in your analysis any of the additional factors contributing to the collapse of the floors, such as any damage incurred when the airplanes hit, any additional weight on the floors due to airplane debris and debris from floors above that were damaged. even assuming your analysis to be correct, the weight on an individual piece of flooring could have been double its usual load, particularly if a section above has fallen on it.
I haven't done the math, but if a floor support is already damaged, or already supporting additional weight, I should think it would be more susceptible to collapse due to fire, no?