So, the other day during one of my lectures, my professor went into the pitfalls of statically determinant designed structures. If you don't know what that means, don't worry, it's not that important to get into that just now.
So he gave two examples... First, that bridge that collapse in MN not too long ago. Second, the WTC tower collapses (he even had information from the trade center's website that has since been taken down).
So question, is it too controversial a subject for me to reiterate some of his lecture points (I'll have diagrams too) of one Engineer's perspective? As a tiny hint -- there's was a critical flaw in design which was outweighed by a design feature no other building ever had....
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.
I grew up in northeast New Jersey and spent most of the first half of my life with those towers as part of the skyline...
Contraversial, no; painful, yes. Watching those towers crumble into billowing smoke and flame feels like holding a loved one's hand as they slip into death. Helpless and knowing nothing you can do would change anything. Seeing the dusty rubble hurts like pictures of a dead brother.
At this point, I don't care who did it or why I just want to go home, but the essence of home's changed so I don't feel like there is a home anymore.
I think the quest for knowledge is never controversial. I do agree that it can be painful.
When the I-35 bridge came down it really hit home, especially considering that me, my wife and my two year old daughter crossed that bridge exactly 24 hours before it happened. I also know someone that crossed that bridge about 2 seconds before it fell. Basically he was the last one off the bridge, saw there weren't any cars behind him, and turned around and ended up helping people out until 3am.