] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Carter, Charlie" <carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org>]

>Is anyone seriously thinking that these
>two buildings were as solid or as able
>to resist a plane as the Empire
>State Building with its superior redundancy?

I do believe the WTC towers were extremely redundant. Better? Worse? Who
knows? We're all just guessing -- unless someone has actually done some
analysis before professing. If you have, I'd love to see how you modelled
the plane impact, damage and fire effects. Respectfully, I'd call the WTC
towers innovative, not cheap, though reality and perception are at work
here. One man's sausage is another man's dog food.

The B-25 that hit the ESB was just about as long as a 767 is tall. It was
lost in fog and running on fumes when it struck. Plus, it was moving at
about one-fifth the speed.

Being as they are not normally designed for it, I think all bets are off
when planes hit buildings. We certainly shouldn't be criticising our
colleagues who did everything they could right (and did a lot more than the
Code required them to do to boot) when things like this happen. All that
does is feed the media appetite for hogwash and controversy.

Charlie

* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org