On Dec 11, 2:15*am, "asadi" wrote:
To say that the collapses and how they occurred were 'drilled' into us as a
part of our training is putting it mildly....I have tried to approach it
objectively and to be honest....I no longer believe what I was told..

Anybody got bourbon and a campfire?

Oh boy, a subject on which I have bona fide expertise. I can tell
you, with professional certainty, that the explanations offered (and
deferred) by the US government are entirely consistent with sound
structural engineering theory and principles. Especially in WTC 1 &
2, the likelihood of a gradual deformation/failure of the floor
framing leading to a catastrophic buckling of the primary columns is
an entirely plausible concept, and one that is not contradicted by any
of the video evidence I've seen.

The failure mechanism of WTC7 is less certain; but the scenarios
theorized by the official reports are also consistent with the video
evidence. From what I've read, when they weren't sure, they said so.

I've participated in several long-running discussions with folks who
were hell bent on believing some controlled demolition nonsense
despite ample evidence to the contrary and unexplainable
inconsistencies in the totality of that idea; but folks will believe
what they want to believe, the facts be damned.

So as a genuine, registered, experienced, practicing structural
engineer, I'd stake my license on the failure mechanism of the WTC
buildings being almost exactly what the official explanation suggests.

That said, I believe there's still plenty of room for conspiracies
within many of the other aspects of the attack, not the least of which
is the financing and training of the terrorists, and who knew what and
when. There are more than enough odd "coincidences" and associations
to suggest that the official story obfuscates some important facts
about the attacks as a whole; but as for the collapses themselves,
there's little doubt among the engineering community as to what really
happened.

Joe F.