I don't know what happened. My intuition says it was an inside job somehow, but I've been clawing back from that and asking myself what explanation can REALLY be supported? The answer is none at all. Ever. When two structural engineering professionals can sit down at the table and look at the same evidence and give you completely different conclusions, that should tell you something about the quality of the evidence present.
Only if you believe that all structural engineers are equal.....
Indeed. It also brings to mind that I've seen scientists back away from data or deny it when it didn't support heir preordained conclusions.Some scientists, anyway.
However, the numbers-strict calculations-don't lie. The planes were full when they left Boston, and were 767-200's. We know how many passengers were on them and what the weather was for their flight path-based on that, we can come up with a reasonably accurate weight of the planes as projectiles. Ditto the amount of fuel left to add to the burn. Based on radar, video, and altitude, we can fairly accurately describe the speed of the planes. We also know what floor they crashed into-so we know what sort of structural damage would ahve been done on initial contact. We can also calculate, with a very slim margin of error, how much fire damage and deformation would have been done due to the fire, based on time of crash to time of collapse. All of these calculations add up to the buildings collapsing-the numbers don't lie, and the only way they can be made to is if the original calculations are disputed, and other values substituted for them-but the planes
were 767-200s, and they
were fully fueled. It
was a relatively calm day, and they
did fly from Boston to New York.
So: weight, speed and area of contact cannot be disputed. All support the conclusion that planes brought down the buildings and no other agents of destruction were involved or needed-it keeps coming back to this, John. It's not that I can't know: it's that
I can and I do, just as accurately as, given the mass, temperature and ambient temperature(s) and relative humidity, I can tell you accurately within seconds how long it will take a block of ice to become a puddle, and then to evaporate.
Math doesn't lie, and, as you know, neither does science. I'd expect better from you.
Those towers were designed from the outset to withstand precisely what happened to them. Not a deliberate aircraft impact but an accidental one. Admittedly those specs were for smaller planes but the reason that the towers really fell is that the construction was nit-picked and penny-pinched down the quality scale. Whether graft or 'economy measures' I guess we'll never know.
They were designed, in 1961, for the 707-the largest jetliner that existed at the time. While the 707 is a little faster in terms of cruising speed, the 767 is significantly heavier. The building was also
not engineered for the subsequent fire, from a nearly fully fueled 767, nor the dislodging of antiquated and somewhat decayed fireproofing from impact. Of course, these are the very factors that John's structural engineer will discount: that the fireproofing would have degraded over 40 years, and wasn't meant for impact-that the heavier 767 would deliver more energy at a slightly lower air speed, that the fires could reach the needed temperatures, etc., etc., etc.
They are, of course, clearly wrong-since the buildings collapsed and all.
