And yet, at various times on this (and other) threads you have laboured under the (later denied) misapprehensions that:
- structural steelwork is not susceptible to fire-indeced failure under normal (never mind aircraft impact) conditions, notwithstanding a wealth of evidence to the contrary in the form of internationally recognised testing criteria and buidling reglations/codes.
- you believe that the lower structure had sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the imposed kinetic loads arrising from collapse and the changing load path routes as the collapse sequence progresses, notwithstanding your apparent inability to produce any meaningful structural calculations to support this assertion.
- You support the patently incorrect assertion that both the core and external load-bearing envelope would have stood in isolation, i.e. without the cross-bracing effect of both floors and hat trusses, in direct contradiction to every other technical account of the towers and with scant regard to issues about transferrence of wind loads and bending moments.
- You have suggested that a pastic garden table is a suitable structural emtaphor - or analogy, take your pick - for the towers.
Heiwa, you're a fraud. You clearly have no grasp of structural issues or the construction of buildings. You have claimed that your paper is peer reviewed when it is clearly not. You have claimed to answer technical criticism on this site, but instead have simply posted evasive responses and hand-waved away rejoinders. You claimed to have given evidence to the US government, but it tured out just to be someone citing your work. Doubtless if I keep looking, I will find more.
And this before I even note that, in a previous life, you appear to have been a no-planer.
