I’ve never heard that, so I don’t know.
Right, I only had 40 years.
Could you supply a list of any buildings or bridges or other structures you were involved in so I can avoid them for my own safety?
Are you seriously claiming to have been a structural engineer for 40 years?? 
Leaving that aside (the less said about it the better I’d say…for your own good), why did you link to the Popular Mechanics article that doesn’t demonstrate whatever you thought you were trying to say? It says rather clearly on page 77 that it was a combination of factors that brought the building down, including fire, a large amount of structural damage to key load bearing components caused by large amounts of debris hitting the building. Another CONTRIBUTING factor, according to your own article, was the ‘unusual design’ of the building, that apparently had large loads on some of the columns (columns that, in some cases were heavily damaged due to falling debris and subsequent 7+ hour fire).
Give it up, gonzo. You are wrong. The buildings weren’t flawed or poorly built or designed. Granted, they were built to older standards and before the advent of computer modeling that we have today, but the buildings were sufficient for their purpose. They were NOT built to have large air planes full of fuel slammed into them at high speeds, nor were they built to have the Twin Towers rain burning debris down on them and be left alone, burning, for 7 hours afterward. I’d say that clearly all three designs exceeded expectations, since they stood long enough to basically evacuate everyone that COULD be evacuated.
-XT
Well, the comment that prompted this response just said “engineering experience”. Gonzo’s speciality could be electrical or civil or something else.
I’m in my last year of a bachelor’s in Software Engineering, for example, though I rather doubt that discipline has existed for 40 years.
Good point, though I remain highly skeptical. I suppose there COULD be a EE out there with writing skills and critical thinking somewhere above belly lint (gods know as often as I’ve butted heads with EE’s over network problems that sometimes it takes sledge hammer to get through to them).
As for a CE, again, not buying it. A good CE would have linked to a paper that detailed the building designs and then been able to go into some details about how they were similar or different, and possibly describe in complete sentences why it was solely or even mainly the design or materials that were at fault. Gonzo, as is his MO, simply links to a cite he THINKS says something related to whatever point he’s trying to make, and does so in a drive by fashion, without bother to even cut and paste out the relevant parts (which wouldn’t have been easy to do, granted, with the PM article, since he didn’t choose to link to the direct article where he COULD have cut and pasted easily).
A REAL CE wouldn’t have used PM articles to discuss a technical point they were trying to make concerning an assertion that the buildings design or construction were the major cause of the collapse, since PM is just using the NIST findings, and is light on technical details.
My guess is that gonzo is retired, and IIRC from other threads I believe he used to work as a manager or something like that in a factory (I may be conflating him with someone else). Auto factory or something similar.
No, probably not. Myself, my first degree is in Aerospace Engineering, and I’ve never used it at all. I also have a bachelors degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Information Systems…and, really, I don’t use them for much more than as pieces of paper on my wall and bullet points on my resume.
-XT
Maybe he drove a train.
So the WTC had a design that’s unique but widely used?
(Guess it’s the same as the logic behind “It fell into its own footprint, taking out a couple of other buildings.”)
Unique to falling down. Eight bldgs hit by flaming debris. Three fell. I would argue that the other bldgs around the world with that construction are also vulnerable. There are I believe ,5 high rises erected with that system.
In the interest of accuracy my field is Mechanical not architecture. But the building theories are not dissimilar.
Come on now. Couldn’t it be that they were not all equally damaged by the debris? The other WTC buildings were damaged enough they had to be destroyed.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/boeing_707_767.html Here is refutation that todays planes are much bigger and that is why the towers fell. Of course you design safety factors many times over the mathematical analysis. The plane difference accounts for nothing.
The other buildings had to be brought down. The towers did not. Big difference. I did not argue they had damage. That actually reinforces my argument. They were all damaged and three, count them 3, pancaked.
Could you try a cite that isn’t batshit insane?
It does not reinforce your argument. If some buildings were more damaged than others, it’s not surprising that the buildings that were more damaged fell.
None of the other buildings suffered the same combination of problems. Many were hit by debris (and some later had to be brought down anyway). Some others had minor fires in them. None were hit as hard AND suffered major fires AND had their fire suppression systems destroyed, nor had the logistical problems Tower 7 did to get fire fighters into the building. It was the combination of factors that ultimately doomed the building.
And, less we forget, the building did stay up, despite all that, for over 7 hours.
-XT
I think I’ll wander off. This has gotten silly (and boring). Somebody let me know if we start talking about wombats again. 
I hear wombats are good when lightly sauteed with butter and white wine and garnished with fresh battle bunny…
-XT
Wow 7 hours. Almost all buildings that catch on fire burn for days. But 7 hours strikes you as a long time? Can you process that none of them fall. Not after 7 hours, but fucking never. Show me another building that pancaked. I know of exactly 3. You figure it out .
Yet none of those other buildings that caught fire were FUCKING HIT BY TONS OF RUBBLE! I know, I know…you really are too stupid to see the distinction. Just as you can not grasp the fact that TWO FUCKING LARGE BUILDINGS FALLING DOWN AND RAINING DOWN DEBRIS INTO THE ENTIRE AREA MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME NON-ZERO FUCKING EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT BUILDING 7 COLLAPSED!
Show me another building that was similarly damaged, burned without any fire suppression or fire fighting intervention for 7 hours and stayed up. Just. One. Or. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
-XT
Poor WTC7. Had it only known its death would’ve caused such vitriol, it would have tried harder to stay upright. All it wanted to do was to love… and be loved. Is that so bad that we must sully its memory with our hate? 
I can not. The bldgs I showed earlier got a lot more damage from fire. They were totally engulfed for 24 hours or more and did not fall.
You know I tried to help you save face. I suggested politely that as an engineer , you would be well aware that you way overbuild for safety contingencies. I showed the specs differences between the old planes and the new planes. They are not very large and you would, if you were at all honest admit that the new planes would be well within safety factors. But as always you want to be in your own tiny little world, some kind of childish victor. I feel sad for you. Because you are so wrong it is sad.
Theterrible fact is the core construction of the bldgs was flawed. Proof of course is all 3 with that construction pancaked. I suppose you can easily show me examples of other bldgs that fell that way. It should be no problem for a person who pretends to have a grasp on what happened.