Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I thought engineers should be more rational
and less emotional about the issue.
I read that long article about the 9/11 investigation and have at least one conclusion:
The author is a very knowledgeable man.
Does he tell the truth?
I do not know.
I think the key point is this:
Was there enough evidence to believe there were explosions on various floors of the tower?
If there was, that alone would turn into dust whatever NIST or the special committee has produced.
The traditional structural analysis is to work the scenario out to a point
when the members are likely to fail.
The new, state of the art methodology goes beyond that.
It can visualize fracture and collapse. Once you perform this part, you realize
that things can go in a way you would not expect. I am disappointed to hear
that the structural investigation so far has only done the first (traditional) stage.
Several years ago I created a simulation of the core collapse of the North Tower.
I can send a Tech Note to anyone interested. (The video clip is a bit long,
some 50 MB, to be e-mailed.)
This type of analysis always makes some assumptions.
I have taken, as a starting point, the weakening of the columns at the critical floor
to the point of being unable to support the mass above that floor.
The statements like "we do not need another conspiracy theory"
bring nothing constructive. It is not about your emotional state
or your preferred view of the world. It is about facts.
Why should anyone pre-judge the truth?
It may turn out to be something altogether different.
The reality may be confusing, but it should not make us
put our heads in the sand.
Sincerely, Gregory from Oz