No problem. Simply show me a compelling alternative analysis, including detailed technical discussion, by someone qualified to (and recognised as having expertise in) the design and analysis of tall structures. I've suggested some names above, but let me just remind you: Arup. Mott MacDonald. Atkins. Jacobs.
Show me an article in NCE, in the RIBA Journal, in a similar internationally recognised journal which supports your case.
Come on; apparently you've got hundreds of professionals on your side. It'll be easy, won't it?
I fear you misunderstand the extent to which the analysis of the collapse, including the NIST findings, has been the subject of professional discussion across the globe.
Let me give you a simple example. The structural Eurocodes were redrafted to include increased protection against disproportionate structural collapse as a result of the NIST study. This decision was taken after being examined by qualified structural engineers here in Europe.On the back of this, the various UK building codes have also been reviewed. This too will include a review by our own structural engineers.
So who am I to believe? Your "hundreds" of experts in "relevant" (hah!) fields, or the real experts from Europe who helped redraft the Eurocode?
Likewise, the alternative thermal expansion analysis put forward variously by Arup and by Edinburgh received widespread coverage in the architectural and engineering press. Rather lends the lie to your claim that such things aren't covered.
Your poor understanding of the application of said law together with not even a basic grasp of structural analysis is not my problem. If you wish to prove me wrong, however, then feel free to post competent structural calculations.
In the meantime I would again commend the previously linked thread. It clearly demonstrates the lack of substance and poor analysis which underpins the same tired theories which you now espouse. Something Heiwa found out to his cost, alas.
