A Mechanical Engineer offers WTC collapse sims for review.

[reprehensor]

Videos on YouTube;
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mmmlink

Just a few comments on the models. I created them using ProE and have been working on them for about nine months now. I used a modeling program to produce the animation. They are to scale down to a mm based on drawings/literature from NIST and FEMA. There were many iterations. The original only had the upper floors. I was going to try and perform a Finite Element Analysis on fires bringing them down but found out quickly how big the model would become and that it would not demonstrate the collapse. I took the majority of my data from the NIST and FEMA reports but I also research old photographs of WTC 1, 2, and 7. NIST and FEMA were very careful to only show 2D drawings and illustrations because showing a realistic 3D model would make it even more difficult to explain fires causing the collapses (which after $20 million, is yet to be simulated). The most remarkable thing I noticed in 3D modeling is how much redundancy was put into the design of the towers (core columns, perimeter columns, and the trusses). My simulation was going to include the planes showing the damage, but it became clear that I would be using the planes as a diversion, like in the actual crash. I can show the openings were consistent with 767's though. I probably removed more of the columns from WTC #1 than I should, but the loads would have simply redistribued themselves and since the towers were built with so many factors of safety (5 is what I found in literature), I am confident office fires did not weaken the steel causing a sudden global collapse. I was also amazed on my final fly-by scene of WTC 1 (after the collapse of WTC 2) and on how little damage it appeared to sustain in the perimeter columns (the opening wasn't changed and I didn't include smoke which might have caused an optical illusion). My model only shows the effects of removing the core columns which is consistent with the videos of the collapses. If I had more time and computer power, I would like to further investigate the explosive aspects of the perimeter columns which would have been consistent with explosives in the trusses.

I also modeled WTC7 (in a different animation) and was also amazed how easy it would have been to remove the 18 core columns (in red) which was probably the cause of the collapse. NIST would have been better off saying the firefighters had the capability to set charges in three hours (to support Silverstein's confession) rather than produce a report explaining fires taking out base girders which was the most robust part of the building. I also created scale models of the pentagon crash but the most I can prove is the downing of lightpoles is consistent with a 757 wingspan, but is also consistent with a Global Hawk wingspan.

As for me, I have a BS and an MS in Mechanical Engineering. I have a Professional Engineer's license and have worked in construction. I created these simulations to push for a REAL independent investigation of 9-11. The next step is naturally building a scale model and either support or refute the simulation. But I don't have that type of budget.

Finally, if it were not for the free exchange of ideas on the internet and for the movie "In Plane Site" and "Loose Change 2nd Edition," I would have been still one of those that still believes the government's story which has yet to prove one fact or produce one piece of evidence. Also popular blog sites like this one and "youtube.com" help increase the distribution of simulations like mine and spread the word to reopen the 9-11 investigation. Thanks for watching.

http://haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/115514400126167878/#188476

[Artdyst]

1. It would be helpful if you would give a brief summary of your findings NT

nt

[reprehensor]

2. Click on YouTube link

and you can view them, sorry I wasn't clear.

[Grateful for Hope]

3. I found the clips fascinating

not being an engineer, I can't comment on what the author is demonstrating. But, they were actually very beautiful to view.

[tabatha]

4. thanks

for doing all that work. It certainly helps to get an idea of the buildings.

The designer said that an airplane flying into one of them would be like sticking a pencil into mosquito netting - and your models certainly show that.

I hope your work can be continued one day to demonstrate what really happened.

[greyl]

5. Here's a quick review.

This is an animation, not a true simulation.
The creator plainly says so. He animated a conspiracy theory, and through the power of suggestion in his description, people will uncritically buy it.
_______________________________________________

Is the model accurate? Are all relevant elements of the structure (like the crucial bolts) modeled? ? No.
The claim that it's accurate to a millimeter is senseless. Why would he make it accurate to millimeter? How would he even obtain measurements that specific about all the relevant parts of the structure?

The description given is totally inadequate to indicate this person was serious and knowledgeable about doing a simulation of the forces acting on those buildings.
He says he used ProE to create the models but keeps the modeling program he used to do the "animation" anonymous? Why not divulge which modeling program he used?

He says he didn't perform a Finite Element Analysis regarding the fires, then says he's convinced fires didn't cause the collapse?

I don't see any evidence of dynamics that simulate real world physics in the model.
It's understandable how the capabilities of a computer can prevent doing a true simulation, but the description is obviously deceptive. I also wonder why he bothered modeling the entire building down to the ground and including surrounding buildings, if he was honestly regretful about the limits put on a simulation by lack of computing power.

In closing, it's bullshit.

[mirandapriestly]

7. The Bush appointed people at NIST animated the official

conspiracy theory, too, because the models they put together wouldn't "fail" according to their own theory of what was supposed to have made the buildings fail, and people uncritically "buy" it.

[greyl]

9. The topic is this "simulation".

Btw, both of us have seen actual video of the collapses. It wasn't animated.

The purpose of a computer sim is to get information unavailable from video and eyewitness accounts, or to predict behavior. This simulation has much less info than the videos do.
It's bullshit.
The guy just wants attention for himself and the 2 movies he mentions in his description.

[mirandapriestly]

21. I am challenging your claim about people "uncritically" viewing

this video by comparing the viewing of this to the NITS report and people being uncritical about that, when it was made by Bush appointed scientists who have good reason to make it look the way the Bush admin. says it should look. Whenever people challenge you, you accused them of "going off topic" which is something you always do.

[greyl]

33. Please do, go right ahead. Challenge is good. nt

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabatha]

16. model

I don't think he implied in any way that it was a simulation of the collapse. He states that he does not have the financing to do that.

"My model only shows the effects of removing the core columns which is consistent with the videos of the collapses."

I learn a little bit here and there from all posts - even if just one small aspect. What I learned from this model was the relative size (to the plane) of the building and the density of support columns inside the building. In fact, I now have a visual inside of my head.

There are two things about the WTC collapse that intrigue me - and each post I read or video I watch is an attempt to find out more about these "double-take" items:

a) The official theory states that the steel supports did not have to melt for the building to collapse. They needed to be heated only to about half or more of the melting point in order for them to buckle and fail. In one of the videos I have seen by Jones, there is clear view of a large quantity of molten metal pouring out of the side of one of the towers. This is not explained by the OCT. I would really like to see an explanation of this that supports the OCT. My guess is that an explanation will not happen.

b) The top 30-story section of the south tower that starts to fall away at an angle - and what happens to stop it from falling on adjacent buildings. The "animation" in this post includes this and demonstrates that in order for the top 30 story collapse to occur as happened in real life, the core columns would have had to be removed.

Each post and each video that I view, whether a comprehensive analysis or a small snippet of another aspect of the collapse, are searched for anything that will help explain these two "jarring" items.

[mirandapriestly]

20. I know that, I was making an analogy to the way people

believe things uncritically. Greyl said that people will "uncritically" believe this animation and
I said people uncritically believed the Bush-appointed NIST model which did not fail as it was supposed to based on their own theory of what happened. I know this isn't a simulation, I understand the basics of the videos.

[greyl]

34. model not accurate

The model can't show the effects of removing the core columns when the model doesn't accurately represent the structure or the dynamic physics acting on the structure.

Is this model accurate? Does it provide new info, or does it only reinforce an opinion?

[dailykoff]

37. No model is 100% accurate

but any model would be more accurate than the inanity peddled by the NIST.

Is "dynamic physics" a Richard Simmons workout video?

[vincent_vega_lives]

87. This is a new one to me

"there is clear view of a large quantity of molten metal pouring out of the side of one of the towers." :wtf: Where did that come from? never mentioned before by any CT'rs.

in order for the top 30 story collapse to occur as happened in real life, the core columns would have had to be removed.

They were effectively removed as structural supports as soon as the building tipped. They were never designed to support the oblique gravity loads placed on them in such a manner.

[mirandapriestly]

6. I noticed the massiveness of the building compared to the "hole"

and, like Tabitha said, it reminded me of the pencil in mosquito netting statement. The uniform failure of both towers to the ground floor makes no sense in terms of the OCT. It was good to see it in 3 d from the perspective of the core columns failing, that makes sense, but the uniform collapse of both entire buildings does not makes sense below the floor where the fires would have been or the impact was. Plus the downward trajectory doesn't work when the top is "toppled" how does the collapse continue downward after that in the OCT.
Nice to see in 3D and travel around the building. I'll bookmark that.

[dailykoff]

8. Yep.

The closer you look at it the more you realize how preposterous the "I+F" theory is.

A big laugh at all the unintentionally hilarious pseudoscientists and their fairy tales.

:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

88. Good analogy

it reminded me of the pencil in mosquito netting statement. except it has nothing to do with how the towers were constructed. That "mosquito net" held up a good portion of the building's gravity load.

but the uniform collapse of both entire buildings does not makes sense below the floor where the fires would have been or the impact was.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the forces involved with the collapse going on above that point.

the downward trajectory doesn't work when the top is "toppled"

The downward trajectory wasn's straight down. The "toppled" section disintegrated, falling on the building below, but also maintained its lateral momentum causing the non-symmetrical footprint.

[KJF]

10. Safety factor of 5 in literature!

This was interesting:
"the loads would have simply redistribued themselves and since the towers were built with so many factors of safety (5 is what I found in literature), I am confident office fires did not weaken the steel"

I'd sure like to see that literature.

[mirandapriestly]

11. had to look that up and for those who don't know it means

"To help account for these uncertainties, engineers apply a factor of safety, or FS, to the design. Most often, the FS appears as a number by which all loads are multiplied. For example, if a bridge is required to carry a 10 ton truck, it may be designed to carry a 50 ton truck, providing a safety factor of 5."

So, how does the safety factor relate to the office fire weakening the steel? I'm not sure I get that.
So the towers were built to hold 5 times what they were required to hold, how does that lead to the steel not weakening...

[dailykoff]

12. It means they were five times stronger than their design ratings.

Let's say a column is supposed to resist a certain load for a certain length of time at a certain temperature. Well, it would be able to support five times that load for the same time and temperature.

But the WTC columns never came their rated failure points anyway.

[LARED]

13. rated failure points?

What exactly are those?

[dailykoff]

14. I just explained it.

But for just for you, they're the time increments that a steel member is certified as being able to resist a certain load at certain temperature for.

Happy now?

[mirandapriestly]

19. Yeah, I know, but why does that lead

to the conclusion that the steel wasn't weakened by office fires, or am I misreading it?
:shrug:

[dailykoff]

25. It makes it less lkely.

The best way to see it is visually. Let's say a column has a vertical design load (maximum dead + live load, which is usually ridiculously overestimated to begin with) of ten tons. The column size chosen would be one rated to hold fifty tons for the specified time (say two hours) and temperature (say 1000 degrees) without losing its load bearing capacity.

So, being thicker and stronger steel, it would take a lot longer than two hours to fail in an actusl office fire, which is why they never do.

[mirandapriestly]

27. So they would have withheld the

fires, is that the point?

[dailykoff]

30. Exactly.

Just like they were designed to do.

:shrug:

[LARED]

15. To help account for these uncertainties

is the reason for safety factors. Having a safety factor of 5 does not mean the towers were built to hold 5 times what they were required to hold, there were designed to hold whatever they were designed for.

The SF of 5 is used to account for things like discontinuities, irregularities, etc in fabrication, construction, and materials. SF are also used as a method to "cover" things like stress concentrations, stress risers; ie things that add stress but cannot or are difficult to analyze.

[mirandapriestly]

23. That's not what I was asking.eom

[LARED]

24. If I understand, you said

So the towers were built to hold 5 times what they were required to hold, how does that lead to the steel not weakening...

I addressed the first point, but to reiterate the towers were not built to hold five times the load. That's not how safety factors work.

To address your second point, the safety factors do not prevent the steel from weakening from higher temperatures. Steel properties change with temperature. As temperatures rise the allowable stress used in the design process decreases. Another way to look at this is when designing for higher temperature applications the designer uses lower allowable stress levels with the same safety factors. This will result in larger steel members or different materials of construction. Please keep in mind I am generalizing a pretty complex process.

This topic has also been addressed ad-nauseum. There is a reason steel buildings are fireproofed. Because steel looses strength as temperatures increase.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. No that is not the reason why steel buildings are fireproofed

The steel doesn't need fireproofing. It's all the other stuff including the people that need fireproofing. The main goal of fireproofing is to prevent fire from spreading or at least slow it down. That is why firewalls are used in construction. The location of the wall will determine the rating. The higher the rate, the more expensive the wall. A one hour fire wall cost more then a 2 hour fire wall. The fire wall between floors at the WTC was at least 2 hours and probably more because of the construction, concrete poured into steel pans. Also, the massive steel columns of the core would have had to sustain a much bigger fire for a much longer time to be compromised.

[LARED]

28. You are half right

Fireproofing does protect the occupants, but it also protects the steel. Check out ASTM E-119 for information. Or if you can't access a copy consider that the WTC joists and column (perimeter and core) were all insulated. Why do that if the only reason is to protect the occupants from a spreading fire?

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. That is true

the steel would be insulated to delay softening and weakening due to being exposed to fire but even without insulation the massive beams of the core would have had to been exposed directly to very intense fire for a number of hours before they would fail.

The only major steel components in the WTC that would be vulnerable were the trusses which by their design are flimsy compared to the rest of the structural steel. Of course the 'theory' is that the insulation was blown off in the blast but that would have only effected the trusses in the blast zone, most of which failed from the impact, so insulation wouldn't have been much of an issue any more. The majority of trusses in the building were not effected and should have withstood the resulting fire for at least a couple of hours. WTC 2 failed in less the one hour and even if some of the trusses started to fail, it should had little effect on the core of the building.

[LARED]

36. Can you explain how you figured this out?

but even without insulation the massive beams of the core would have had to been exposed directly to very intense fire for a number of hours before they would fail.

Just because you believe this does not make it true. There is no evidence to substantiate your position. Is there?

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Show me some beams

that have evidence of fire damage?

[LARED]

39. Nice attempt at a diversion, Can you explain your statement?

Or not?

[DoYouEverWonder]

79. Here's a pic of the trusses

Please show me a pic of a fire damaged truss or piece of steel.

[LARED]

80. Again with a diversion

You stated;

but even without insulation the massive beams of the core would have had to been exposed directly to very intense fire for a number of hours before they would fail.

My question is how do you know this?

[DoYouEverWonder]

81. Well there were 44+ columns in the core

of each tower. There has been no evidence shown or reported of any of these columns showing evidence of failure due to fire damage.

At least, according to the NIST fairytale.

[LARED]

82. What would evidence of fire damage look like?

The reason I ask is that steel looses significant strength at temperatures well below the melting point.

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. Well I would assume it would probably

look like the damage you see in the building in the back of the pic. (I think that's part of WTC 5)

[dailykoff]

84. We'd also see a lot of heat-buckling,

which would make core columns look more or less like this:



But there don't seem to be any heat-buckled core columns anywhere. How odd.

[dailykoff]

32. GREAT PIC!!

Yet another WTC core column showing absolutely no sign of compression failure or of any deformation whatsoever.



Gee, where are all those 10,340 fire-buckled core columns? Where is ONE?

[dailykoff]

31. You mean stress concentrations like "impact + fire"?

For once you're almost right. Congratulations.

[LARED]

35. Stress concentrators are

discontinuities that interrupt the stress path in a piece of steel, The discontinuities can be from many sources such as notches, holes, weldments, appurtenances, to name just a few.

Once again you're blowing smoke, Is that 1000+ consecutive posts?

[dailykoff]

40. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

And you unintentionally hit the nail on the head: unforeseen circumstances like 9/11 (official version) are exactly what safety factors accommodate.

[LARED]

41. Completely wrong (n/t)

[AZCat]

17. It sounds like you need a quick primer in safety factors.

When structural members are manufactured it is not possible to create them all equal - some will be stronger than others. Samples are tested to determine the average strength of a batch and it is assumed that the population of structural members falls in a normal distribution around that average. Because some structural members will be weaker than the average (and it is impossible to tell which without destructively testing them) the structure is designed using higher load conditions than if the strength of the members was known precisely. Since the reliability of structures is a "life safety" issue, larger safety factors are used than in other engineered systems. Designs for air conditioning systems, for example, routinely use safety factors lower than 25%.

The problem with structures is that a weak structural member might make no difference in the overall "robustness" of the structure or it might make a huge difference, depending on where it is in the structural system. Since it is impossible to predict where the weak members will be designers must allow for the worst case.

Let me know if you have any questions or if this is unclear.

[gbwarming]

18. Also, safety factors are calculated for the intact structure

Removal or damage to structural members is NOT a part of standard calculations and may have wildly unexpected results. To say that the structure has a FS of 5 does not mean that you can remove and arbitrary 4/5 of the elements and keep it standing. It may even be the case that there is no redundancy and none can be severed without affecting the structure's stability. As an extreme example, a three legged table of any safety factor will fall over if a leg is missing even though the remaining legs are strong enough to carry the load. The WTC was surely more redundant than the table, but the safety factor doesn't give any information about it.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

42. which is what I said; it is built stronger than necessary

no need for the extra spin. (Well, maybe for you there is...)

[AZCat]

43. No, that's not correct.

It is necesssary to build it that strong, to account for the unknowns.

Spin? Please point out to me where I have spun miranda, because I am unaware of any. Or is this another incorrect recollection of yours?

[mirandapriestly]

44. stronger than it can hold which is what I said originally

Quit with the games.

[AZCat]

47. There are no games - you fail to grasp this.

You said (in post #11), "So the towers were built to hold 5 times what they were required to hold..."

I have explained (several times, as have others) that a the purpose of a safety factor is to ensure that the building can hold the design load. These safety factors are required precisely because those responsible for the safety of the occupants of the building and of the surrounding area understand that the unknowns in a system such as a building structure are a risk and must be accounted for.

A safety factor of five does not mean that the building could be loaded with five times the original design load and remain standing. It could not be loaded to twice the original design load without a number of respected professionals (whose reputations, careers and freedom are on the line) freaking out. It is designed to hold the design load, period! The safety factor is merely a design method used to compensate for uncertainty.

Why do you insist on this incorrect interpretation of a standard engineering technique?

[dailykoff]

50. Baloney.

They used the best steel in the world and the SF was not intended to compensate for crummy materials. Get real.

[AZCat]

53. I disagree.

It doesn't matter how "good" the steel is supposed to be, the structural members can not all be manufactured alike. There is still variance in the quality of the product, and that is one of the things for which safety factors are intended to compensate. You can deny this all you like, but it won't change anything.

[dailykoff]

55. Steel flaws would not merit an SF of 5-10.

That kind of safety factor is meant to prevent catastrophe in case of unforseen structural damage of the type that supposedly occurred on 9/11.

And it would have, if they hadn't also packed in the explosives.

[AZCat]

57. Uh-huh.

And this is where we truly diverge. Goodnight.

[Make7]

46. I remember miranda's previous reply to you in the now deleted sub-thread.

Apparently she must have been mistaken about what she said at the end of that post.

- Make7

[AZCat]

48. If it's what I think it was...

then maybe she realized she was mistaken (we can only hope).

[mirandapriestly]

58. It's right above you in post 11

I said this-
"So the towers were built to hold 5 times what they were required to hold, how does that lead to the steel not weakening..."

are you making mistatements Make 7? I guess you must be getting desperate...
azcat the expert texpert, is the one who is playing semantics, but you never "go after" your colleagues, no matter how at fault they might be.

[Make7]

59. No, I said your previous reply to AZCat. Post #11 is a reply to KJF.

This is your previous post that I was referring to.

It seems obvious by the simple fact that you are replying to AZCat's posts that what you previously said was untrue. Do you forget things that you say, but somehow unfailingly remember what others say?

You alluded to a post that AZCat made in a deleted sub-thread that was part of another thread altogether. Does that refresh your memory? Or shall I continue?

I'm sure Hope2006 can confirm it, she made a post stating that she remembered the post you alluded to. She should be able to verify what you said in the post that I am referring to. It is doubtful that she would take sides in all of this, right?

- Make7

[greyl]

60. Furthermore,

I don't recall any links to "crazy people".
There was a link to a very interesting link to "Van Gelder 1991 - The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover.pdf", but nothing about crazy people as I recall.
Therefore, MP's accusation about AZcat is false.

[Grateful for Hope]

61. It might be a good idea

to review this post by Make7:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x107874

Specifically:

If someone makes an accusation about what another member said in a post that has been deleted, the accusation is not proven by the person simply saying that they remember it.

I agreed with him - I can't prove my point simply by stating "I remember it", and neither can you.

[greyl]

62. I have the actual document he linked to to support my statement.

I retract nothing!

[Grateful for Hope]

63. He is linking to a deleted sub-thread

I trust the judgement of the mods when posts are deleted, and I don't save them. I also respect posters who change their minds when posting by not posting their prior attempts at a post to start trouble.

But, that's just me.

On edit: removed an additional "their".

[greyl]

64. Read post 59 carefully.

"part of another thread altogether"

AZcat didn't link to anything about crazy people, he linked to a pdf file about an elaborately synthetic online identity.

[Grateful for Hope]

65. link? n/t

[AZCat]

66. Link to what?

The article? It's here down at Week 3: Identity and Anonymity (since it is a pdf, some people like to have a link to the host page). The article is The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover (warning - pdf) and originally appeared in Ms. magazine back in October 1985.

[Grateful for Hope]

67. Link to your post

not to the link you provided. My point is, if your post was deleted, then it can't be proven one way or another what was said or not said.

BTW, tried to read the article, but, the PDF article is sideways. It was hurting my neck to try to read it.

[AZCat]

68. I had to print it out for the same reason.

It's worth a read. I originally read it quite some time ago as an undergraduate but had forgotten a lot of the details. It is telling that the issues the author grapples are still prevalent in online communities today.

You are correct that a deleted post prevents proof. I can only rely on your impression of my posts in general as a buttress against claims of the sort discussed here. I try hard to respect other posters here and to avoid insulting them (inadvertently or not) but I know that I may interpret something quite differently than another. It is this communication gap that I fear drives most of the hostility I see on the internet - it is too easy to forget that written language must compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues and that we must write carefully to say what we mean.

[Grateful for Hope]

69. I will print it out....should have thought of that myself!

I appreciate your honesty here, and, I have actually noticed that your are a respectul poster. I apologize for misjudging your intent.

[AZCat]

70. Please don't apologize.

I don't have the ability to judge my own posts from outside myself, so it is only through feedback from other posters such as you that I can learn what behaviors are most likely to be misunderstood.

If you don't let me know, I can't correct my posting style in the future. So please - if you see something that rubs you wrong, tell me! :)

[Grateful for Hope]

71. This is appreciated

I am sure I won't need to do that, however...:)

[greyl]

72. Regarding proof.

MP made the accusation that "AZCat and Make7 started making posts linking to articles on crazy people".
That accusation still exists at post #11 - it can't be disputed.
MP can't back it up because the links to crazy people never existed. She may have saved the page or grabbed a screenshot, but no. Just a baseless accusation.

Knowing the truth, I offered it. I have the document that was linked to to back me up, and now you can see the document for yourself as well as judge AZcat's testimony on the matter.

MP's accusation is false.

(Shift+Ctrl+R will rotate pages in Acrobat.)

[Grateful for Hope]

73. Whatever makes you happy. n/t

[greyl]

74. Honesty and clarity are two things I enjoy. nt

[Grateful for Hope]

75. Among other things. n/t

[Jazz2006]

76. .

[greyl]

77. I also enjoy winning arguments.

That's one reason I avoid starting wars I can't win.

[Grateful for Hope]

78. You won? n/t

[greyl]

85. Yes, obviously. When someone in a debate responds by saying

"Whatever makes you happy", that typically means they have begrudgingly surrendered.

[Grateful for Hope]

86. Really?

I have had a number of PM's about this exchange, and that is not what I am hearing. Go ahead and imagine you won.

What I am hearing is that you set out to discredit a poster here, and, you were not successful.

Bear in mind that I only reporting the thoughts of others...I am merely telling you what other posters have said.

[greyl]

89. Yes, really. I don't lie. I don't post lies.

I set out to support a DUer who had been dishonestly attacked by MirandaPriestly and Hope2006.

I accomplished that goal.

[dailykoff]

49. Right, to account for unknowns like I+F.

Except that it wasn't an unknown and they'd considered it in the original design.

[AZCat]

51. Yes, but sometimes even great designs fail when operating outside...

of design conditions.

[dailykoff]

52. Impact + fire was definitely NOT outside the design conditions.

n/t

[AZCat]

54. And you've seen the original structural analysis?

If you have not, then I think it is inappropriate to speak so definitively because while those two conditions were included in the analysis, we don't know whether or not they were considered in tandem, nor do we know what the magnitude was of the damage supposed for either of the two. We know what kind of plane they used in the impact analysis, but as for the vector or what assumptions they made about the response of the structure I think it has all been lost or destroyed since the building was completed.

[dailykoff]

56. I'v e heard Leslie Roberston yakking about it, yes.

And a couple of other WTC engineers. I guess I'll have to take their word for it.

[greyl]

90. "A Mechanical Engineer offers WTC collapse sims for review." Pathetic.

"offers WTC collapse sims for review." ?

Does he think most Americans are total fucking gullible idiots?

I'll check the responses after I watch Montel.