Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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 can't give his name (nor can I give my own). If you'd like, there are plenty of engineers out there, and most of them are only a phone call away.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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.
|
Here's the thing though...the various independant organizations you mention are in two groups: the NIST and FEMA, and entertainment organizations like the History Channel and Popular Mechanics. The second group is basically a joke from the standpoint of fact checking, as they get all their info from the first group and simply reprint. That means that the 'various organizations' boil down to just two organizations very quickly. Two organization do not represent the entire engineering community.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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?
|
Most of them told me to fuck off before I could ask them a single question. I don't really count them as against or for my point as they did not give me any information beyond the fact that some peopkle are dousche bags.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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?
|
He gave me the same answer that most people give me: "I honestly don't know." No one came out and siad I was wrong. A few people said I was probably right, but essentially I was given the 'let me think about it' answer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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?
|
He agreed completly. As soon as he told me about the 5 times the rated weight thing I asked him if that meant that it was closer to 20%, and he said yes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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?
|
Damage incurred from the airplanes would not have caused the top floor to collapse first, as is varified by photographic evidence taken the day of the collapse. The NIST and FEMA both say that heat, not crash damage, was the cause of the collapse. As for the airplanes themselves, airplanes are quite light, and even lighter when they are ripped to shreds by outer support columns. The weight of the plane would be divided up many many times.