Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:

Titanic was "state of the art" for its time.

So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive
if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the
towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just
structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops.



So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup?


Comes up as a major screwup to me. We'll see how the pros call it.
Some of them claim that the architects screwed up when they failed to
factor in the prospect of fuel explosions in addition to the aircraft
impact loads. Apparently analyses are showing that if one or another
of the tower's steel stucture had been properly insulated it might
have not come down. There's a congressionally-mandated technical
report in the works which gets into the topic in depth which should be
released soon and is reported to pass out some spankings.

I was at a presentation made by the head of the engineering team that
investigated the Twin towers disaster.

"The" engineering firm?? Do you have any idea just how *many*
engineering firms have been involved in the WTC disaster??

He said that too many people
aproached it from the wrong angle They ask why did the towers fall so
quickly. A better question would have been how did they stay up so long.

Engineers so often get tarred and feathered when this sort of thing
happens.

Been that way since the first well-known engineers built the pyramids,
comes with the turf.

What we really need is for engineers to accomodate ALL possible
scenarios, both KNOWN and UNKNOWN. 8^)

Not our yob, that's the kind of crap the physicists get paid to mess
with.


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv