A number of the current supporters of 911 Truth are extensively quoting their interpretation of Newtonian theory and making references to physicists' interpretation of the collapse sequence; Ergo is perhaps the most prominent example.
This is a question for those individuals. I'd be grateful if the rest of you could hang back a bit, give them some clear space without the usual sniping and the like.
What I want to ask is why you're hanging your hat on physics in lieu of structural engineering expertise.
Structural engineering is, of course, the analysis of loads through built structures, based physical factors and empirical knowledge of the performance of materials. Structural engineers require a comprehensive understanding of such issues in order to satisfy both functional and statutory criteria.
By way of example, let's look at the main modules for a fairly typical MSc course in structures:
Physics, in contrast, is a much wider field which can focuss on a huge range of issues. It does not, as a matter of course, include the kind of detailed analysis and interpretation of the structural performance of either individual elements or complex composite structures.
So why do a number of you clearly believe that such a broad understanding of the subject is the preferred method of analysis in contrast to structural engineering? Are you claiming that education in physics includes a sufficient grounding in materials performance for one to carry out such analyses? And if this is indeed the case then why do structural engineers need to develop appropriate modelling and and design systems?
I put it to you that a degree in physics no more equips one for such structural work than, say, a BA in Linguistics will mean you can speak French. It might give you an idea of a general framework or background, but does not provide the kind of detailed information one requires to rigorously interrogate or understand the topic at hand.
Let's break this down into three main questions then?
1. Do you believe that a thorough grounding in physics will provide you with sufficient technical expertise to analyse the performance (and failure) of a complex structural system such as the WTC collapse?
2. Do you agree that structural engineering is a more relevant and necessarily complex means of analysing such structures, and if not then why not?
3. Assuming that you concur with (2), then why do many members of the Truth Movement continue to attempt to apply broad physics issues (for example Newtonian Theory) without regard to more appropriate and focussed structural analysis techniques?
Let me stress that for the purposes of this thread I'm not interest in an argument about facts and figures, or calculations. This is about what Truthers consider to be the core analytical skills necessary to comment on structural collapse issues.
Ergo, MM, I would especially welcome your views.
This is a question for those individuals. I'd be grateful if the rest of you could hang back a bit, give them some clear space without the usual sniping and the like.
What I want to ask is why you're hanging your hat on physics in lieu of structural engineering expertise.
Structural engineering is, of course, the analysis of loads through built structures, based physical factors and empirical knowledge of the performance of materials. Structural engineers require a comprehensive understanding of such issues in order to satisfy both functional and statutory criteria.
By way of example, let's look at the main modules for a fairly typical MSc course in structures:
- Concrete materials
- Cold-formed steel design
- Design and construction
- Design of steel bridges
- Design of steel buildings
- Finite element analysis
- Non-linear structural analysis
- Plated structures
- Prestressed concrete
- Reinforced concrete I
- Reinforced concrete II
- Steel components
- Structural analysis
- Structural assessment and Loading
- Structural dynamics
- Structural stability
- Structural steel technology
- Time and temperature-dependent behaviour of concrete structures
Physics, in contrast, is a much wider field which can focuss on a huge range of issues. It does not, as a matter of course, include the kind of detailed analysis and interpretation of the structural performance of either individual elements or complex composite structures.
So why do a number of you clearly believe that such a broad understanding of the subject is the preferred method of analysis in contrast to structural engineering? Are you claiming that education in physics includes a sufficient grounding in materials performance for one to carry out such analyses? And if this is indeed the case then why do structural engineers need to develop appropriate modelling and and design systems?
I put it to you that a degree in physics no more equips one for such structural work than, say, a BA in Linguistics will mean you can speak French. It might give you an idea of a general framework or background, but does not provide the kind of detailed information one requires to rigorously interrogate or understand the topic at hand.
Let's break this down into three main questions then?
1. Do you believe that a thorough grounding in physics will provide you with sufficient technical expertise to analyse the performance (and failure) of a complex structural system such as the WTC collapse?
2. Do you agree that structural engineering is a more relevant and necessarily complex means of analysing such structures, and if not then why not?
3. Assuming that you concur with (2), then why do many members of the Truth Movement continue to attempt to apply broad physics issues (for example Newtonian Theory) without regard to more appropriate and focussed structural analysis techniques?
Let me stress that for the purposes of this thread I'm not interest in an argument about facts and figures, or calculations. This is about what Truthers consider to be the core analytical skills necessary to comment on structural collapse issues.
Ergo, MM, I would especially welcome your views.
Last edited:
