Everything that the ASCE did was peer reviewed to the infinite degree. My comment about the tree is obviously lost on several here.

I guess you have to be a structural engineer to understand.



Everything the ASCE did was peer reviewed by their partners,FEMA and NIST. Remember that the ASCE team had 25 members. Over 1500 architects and engineers also Peer reviewed the ASCE report and found it lacking in every department.

The analogy with the tree was actually quite good.


Again, it comes down to who you can believe. The official version
just doesn't make sense.





No, the ASCE report was peer reviewed by the ASCE which represents most of the qualified structural engineers in the country. FEMA is not a partner and the NIST has some expertise but only a fraction compared to the ASCE.

The 1500 clowns to which you refer are not qualified to analyze anything even close to structures of this type and , in any case, do not compare to the tens of thousands of members of the ASCE.

Funny how the tens of thousands of ASCE members are quite comfortable with basic analysis of the collapse of the twin towers.

The ASCE did a special study of building seven and found the unique (and somewhat stupid) design played a large role in the ability of fires to bring the building down.

The reason there is so much agreement within the ASCE is that the reasons for failure are so obvious to a trained structural engineer, it really doesn't take that much experience to understand it.

No, the ASCE report was peer reviewed by the ASCE which represents most of the qualified structural engineers in the country. FEMA is not a partner and the NIST has some expertise but only a fraction compared to the ASCE.


So the ASCE report was peer reviewed by itself? No problem there.


The 1500 clowns to which you refer are not qualified to analyze anything even close to structures of this type and , in any case, do not compare to the tens of thousands of members of the ASCE.

In your opinion.

Funny how the tens of thousands of ASCE members are quite comfortable with basic analysis of the collapse of the twin towers.

Would it be false to assume that to be ASCE certified you must actually have that certification and without that certification an
individual severely limits his scope of employment?



The ASCE did a special study of building seven and found the unique (and somewhat stupid) design played a large role in the ability of fires to bring the building down.

Using the same criteria as the tower investigation? When Silverstein remodeled for the Salomon Brothers in the mid 90's the buildings structural integrity was brought up beyond current standards. Again, If this building could be brought down as the result of only a fire why was there no inspections and retrofits on every steel hi-rise in the United States.

The reason there is so much agreement within the ASCE is that the reasons for failure are so obvious to a trained structural engineer, it really doesn't take that much experience to understand it.

I actually find that kind of dubious.

BTW are you ASCE certified?

Quite obviously, 1984 was almost thirty years ago. We've gotten a lot worse since then.

It's a funny age we live in where "truth" has become a dirty word and the transparent lie is now too opaque to pierce.

I'm pretty sure we all live in a virtual reality and the computer we "live" in crashed a long time ago.