12-07-2011, 04:42 PM
Mr. Burnham
I don't like to call myself an expert in anything. I am a licensed architect since 1982 and working in the profession since 1970 including working for the very architects who had designed the Twin Towers as my first post graduating college job.
I have been "reverse" engineering and presenting the basic structural issues which IS at my pay grade but clearly above Mr. Fetzer's in these matters as he has proven in spades in the "where did the towers go?" thread not in the "bear pit".
There is other technical work which I don't do such as video trace analysis and assorted energy calculations that physicists are doing PROPERLY... I trust. I can't evaluate their work because I am not trained in it. I can somewhat comprehend their methodology and intellectual honesty in their presentations. That is to say I can see when someone is BSing and citing things which they don't understand... such as Mr. Fetzer does in MANY.. too many cases.
I don't venture into the analysis of aviation data, avionics, and even seismic data... all fields I am not competent to evaluate... nor I think is Fetzer or you!!!!!!!!!
My work is simply to model the twin towers and find their weakest points which obviously were the points which failed FIRST. And this lead to their total destruction. I think that is a sound approach. This would have to correlate to the observables and for example the claims of explosions in the sub basements DO NOT correlate to the observables (collapse sequence). The "explosions" need to be properly identified and explained. They can't be simply ignored as outlier.
As far as I can tell at this date the best fit to the observables is a gravity driven collapse from around the plane strike zones of undetermined cause... initiation.
I don't like to call myself an expert in anything. I am a licensed architect since 1982 and working in the profession since 1970 including working for the very architects who had designed the Twin Towers as my first post graduating college job.
I have been "reverse" engineering and presenting the basic structural issues which IS at my pay grade but clearly above Mr. Fetzer's in these matters as he has proven in spades in the "where did the towers go?" thread not in the "bear pit".
There is other technical work which I don't do such as video trace analysis and assorted energy calculations that physicists are doing PROPERLY... I trust. I can't evaluate their work because I am not trained in it. I can somewhat comprehend their methodology and intellectual honesty in their presentations. That is to say I can see when someone is BSing and citing things which they don't understand... such as Mr. Fetzer does in MANY.. too many cases.
I don't venture into the analysis of aviation data, avionics, and even seismic data... all fields I am not competent to evaluate... nor I think is Fetzer or you!!!!!!!!!
My work is simply to model the twin towers and find their weakest points which obviously were the points which failed FIRST. And this lead to their total destruction. I think that is a sound approach. This would have to correlate to the observables and for example the claims of explosions in the sub basements DO NOT correlate to the observables (collapse sequence). The "explosions" need to be properly identified and explained. They can't be simply ignored as outlier.
As far as I can tell at this date the best fit to the observables is a gravity driven collapse from around the plane strike zones of undetermined cause... initiation.