The Bizzle Blogz

I run this town like Barbaro

2011-01-06T06:38:00.000-08:00

For the new year I had to update my biography/resume. I guess I never realized how much I've done in the last few years. Anyway, check out my stats after the jump...

Biography:
Troy Bishop is a leading Engineer-In-Training with growing responsibilities to prepare him for professional certification. His experience has given him a great balance of responsibility, field and book knowledge, and practical sense. Mr. Bishop began his career in the construction industry in 2006 while designing, managing, and building pre-engineered steel architectural domes and radius steel projects known throughout South Florida. He soon received his General Contractor’s license in 2007, scoring a 95% on the 2-day exam. Within a year Troy was not only granted his bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering at Florida Atlantic University, but was also certified as a Florida E.I. to continue his path to become a Professional Engineer at Engineering Express. He has broad experience in numerous aspects of physical design and approvals, technology implementation, and design efficiency. His direct familiarity with contractors, architects, manufacturers, and building officials has given him skill not only as a forward-thinking engineer, but as a consultant who can understand and work through the complications of building in South Florida. Troy currently specializes in designs and inspections ranging from entire building envelope systems to various types of specialty pre-engineered structures as well as hundreds of railing, staircase, and sunroom installations throughout Florida. Mr. Bishop has been instrumental in the continuance of Engineering Express: he currently serves as Vice President of Operations, managing an average of 600 projects per year while sustaining his own departments’ long-term goals.

Areas of Expertise:

·         Licensed General Contractor (CGC#1514456)

·         Florida Certified Engineer-In-Training (E.I.)

·         Building envelope and build-out remediation, inspection, and design

·         Field inspection and modifications for masonry and steel structures

·         Calculations, designs, and inspections for build-out and as-built structures

·         Aluminum and glass railing safeguard systems

·         Value- and reverse-engineering applications

·         Window and door installation remediation

·         Manufacturer consulting for rooftop equipment applications

Career Highlights:

·         Designed and installed architectural copper and steel radius features for the following:

The Meridian at One North Ocean, Boca Raton, FL
12th Avenue Bascule Bridge House, Miami, FL

· Provided complete building envelope systems engineering, inspection, and design to include:

North Broward Medical Center Elevator Tower, Pompano Beach, FL
MD Anderson Parking Facility Aluminum Louvered Screen, Houston, TX

· Full-scale commercial interior/exterior improvements (storefront design and engineering, build-outs, canopies, trellis and shade systems) to include:

Mystic Pointe Storefront Replacement, Aventura, FL
Tornino Lamborghini Interior Build-out, Hallandale Beach, FL
Trulucks Restaurant Exterior Radius Canopies, Miami, FL
Alhambra Building Rooftop Trellis and Rails, Coral Gables, FL

· Value-engineering and manufacturer consultation from product inception, through testing and evaluation, to submittal and approval:

Ingersoll-Rand Corporation, XB/XR/XL Model Tiedown Kit Certification
Carrier Corporation, Florida Product Approval Testing for Large Missile Impact, Cyclic and Static Wind Loading of Rooftop Equipment

$150k Construction Equipment Donated to Haiti

2010-02-12T08:30:00.000-08:00

JCB, the world's third largest manufacturer of construction equipment, is donating equipment worth $150,000 to help the disaster relief effort in Haiti following the devastating earthquake that is feared to have killed tens of thousands of people.

The gift of two 3CX backhoe loaders is being made by JCB Chairman Sir Anthony Bamford in response to an appeal from relief agencies for foreign aid. Sir Anthony Bamford said: "The scale of the devastation is unimaginable and it's heart-rending to see the human suffering caused by the disaster. There is clearly a lack of equipment on the island and I hope our gift of JCB machines will help in some small way to alleviate that suffering and in the rebuilding in the aftermath of the earthquake."

The machines are being made available to the US Government and its aid agencies, which are taking a leading role in the relief effort on the Caribbean island. The earthquake, measuring 7.0 on the Richter Scale, has damaged the port and has created a number of logistical challenges hindering supplies entering the nation.

John Patterson, Chairman and CEO of JCB Inc., says, "We are working with the State Department and the United States Southern Command who are coordinating the massive relief effort in Haiti. We want utilize the most efficient channels available to ensure that the machines reach the agencies and the people that need them. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Haiti."

The contribution to the aid effort follows a series of other JCB machinery donations in recent years to other parts of the world hit by natural disasters, including the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province in China, when six backhoe loaders worth over $600,000 and a team of operators were sent from the company's factory in Shanghai to help the clean-up effort in the region.

JCB also donated machines worth more than $2 million to help in the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami in 2004, with JCB diggers deployed to Thailand, southern India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Last year the company donated an excavator and a backhoe loader worth $250,000 to help the disaster relief effort in the city of Padang following the devastating earthquake that struck off the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

From http://concreteconstruction.net/industry-news.asp?sectionID=718&articleID=1172199

Hope

2010-01-22T05:56:00.000-08:00

We all know about the Haiti earthquake but only some of us in America may have been affected by it. Since my roommate is of Haitian descent, this disaster has been especially hard on him as he lost loved ones in the 6.9 tumbler. Thankfully, he finally heard from his Dad yesterday and discovered he is alive and well. Last night I read this incredible story from Sergey Brin, Co-Founder of Google, Inc and I thought it would be appropriate to share its message of encouragement:

Several days ago I volunteered on a relief mission to Haiti that brought in nearly 20,000 lbs of supplies. While the trip was brief, I did travel into the city of Port-au-Prince to deliver medical supplies to a key hospital and witnessed the devastation first hand.

Upon arrival at the airport, the first thing you see is the sheer scale of the relief effort. Numerous C-17s and other cargo planes are continually flying in and out, offloading vast amounts of supplies. Dozens of military helicopters are simultaneously in operation on a scale far beyond anything I have ever seen. Thousands of military and civilian personnel are active from the US, UN, Haiti, and relief organizations.

Driving into the heart of the capital city the need for such scale becomes apparent. Because the airport is farther from the epicenter, the damage you first see appears relatively minor -- cracks in buildings, damaged walls, and littered streets. But soon the sheer magnitude of the devastation becomes difficult to comprehend. Many entire buildings have been reduced to rubble. Makeshift tent camps dominate plazas and parks. Perhaps the most haunting are the buildings that have partially failed but not entirely collapsed. The National Palace stands a surreal site with tilted domes and crumbling walls. Other government buildings are completely leveled.

The vast majority of the former buildings in the hospital I visited are too damaged to be safe. The remaining two buildings that are being used to care for patients show their own signs of compromise. Yet heroic volunteers are able to serve over 1000 patients with a wide variety of serious injuries. They are short on supplies and only recently got electric power so they have light which allows them to work at night.

However, the real heroes are the people of Haiti. Despite tremendous challenge and suffering, they still show an incredible strength of spirit and resilience to the harshest of conditions. Seeing the people firsthand left me with a vastly different impression than I had going in based on news reports. Instead of roving gangs of violent criminals, I found people caring for the wounded and providing critical supplies to those most in need. Instead of people weeping of despair, I saw people busy rebuilding their lives in the most challenging of environments.

Yet immense challenges do remain and it is a race around the clock to prevent suffering, untreated injury, and loss of life. I believe there are several key factors that could tilt the odds dramatically. First, while there is tremendous relief effort from the US, UN, Haiti, and NGOs, the coordination and organization between these remains unclear. It is critical to have top level command and control across the entire breadth of efforts in order to maximize effectiveness.

Second, it is necessary to scale up the provisioning of shelter, food, water, sanitation, and health care by at least an order of magnitude. As much as it has difficult associations, I believe the best way to accomplish this is large scale temporary tent camps to house hundreds of thousands of people. I believe these should be near the airport or other facilities to which supplies can be readily delivered.

Lastly, there are several categories of people who should be evacuated out of Haiti to other countries (notably the US) where there is far more capacity to provide care. This includes those who are severely injured as well as orphaned children. While each of us is a citizen of a particular country, we are all citizens of the world. The responsibility falls on all of us to lend a hand when a tragedy of this magnitude befalls some of us.

Photos from my trip are here. Note they may be difficult to look at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/sergey.brin/201001Haiti

In the past two days, we have posted fresh high resolution imagery in Google Maps which I hope will be valuable to aid workers:

http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-imagery-of-port-au-prince.html

The main Google crisis response page for the Haiti earthquake is here and has numerous resources including how you can help:

http://www.google.com/relief/haitiearthquake/index.html

POSTED BY SERGEY BRIN AT 11:55 AM 0 COMMENTS

Original blog post here: http://too.blogspot.com/2010/01/hope.html

Droid Smartphone Takes #1 Spot for Best Gadget

2009-12-11T10:28:00.000-08:00

Have you been debating if you should get a Motorola Droid or an iPhone? Have you made your purchase already and now maybe you're having second thoughts?

Well, Time Magazine is either here to help you out or add salt to your wounds. They've released their Top 10 Everything of 2009 list and guess what's up top. That's right... the Motorola Droid is #1. I'm excited about this because I am FINALLY due for a Droid come Christmas (thanks to my girlfriend--thank you and love you baby!)

Take this iPhone!

Time Magazine: Everybody likes Android, Google's open-source smartphone operating system. But a smartphone operating system isn't all that satisfying without an actual kick-ass smartphone wrapped around it. Now Android has one: The Droid is a hefty beast, a metal behemoth without the gloss and finish of the iPhone, but you don't miss it. The Droid's touchscreen is phenomenally sharp and vivid, it has an actual physical (not great, but good enough) keyboard, and best of all, the Droid is on Verizon's best-of-breed 3G network. It's Android's first credible challenge to the iPhone. Price: $200 with a 2-year contract.

Here's the entire list for "Top 10 Gadgets of 2009":

Slow Atlantic Hurricane Season Comes to a Close

2009-12-07T18:51:00.000-08:00

The 2009 Atlantic hurricane season officially ended last week, marking the close of a season with the fewest named storms and hurricanes since 1997 thanks, in part, to El Niño.

Nine named storms formed this year, including three hurricanes, two of which were major hurricanes at Category 3 strength or higher. These numbers fall within the ranges predicted in NOAA’s mid-season outlook issued in August, which called for seven to 11 named storms, three to six hurricanes, and one to two major hurricanes. An average season has 11 named storms and six hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.

“The reduced activity was expected and reflects the development of El Niño during the summer,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service. “El Niño produced strong wind shear across the Caribbean Sea and western tropical Atlantic, which resulted in fewer and shorter-lived storms compared to some recent very active seasons.”

Two systems, Claudette and Ida, brought tropical storm force winds to the U.S. mainland. For the first time in three years, no hurricanes hit the U.S. There were 38 hurricane hunter aircraft reconnaissance missions flown by NOAA and the U.S. Air Force over the Atlantic Basin this year compared to 169 in 2008 – another indication of a less active season.

“El Niño is expected to reach peak strength this winter, and will likely continue into the spring. It is far too early to say whether El Niño will be present next summer,” added Bell. NOAA will issue its initial 2010 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook in May, prior to the official start of the season on June 1.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment—from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun—and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

By the way, my new favorite website (at least for next year) is http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ the National Hurricane Center.

From http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091130_endhurricaneseason.html

Engineering the ATLANTIS in the Bahamas

2009-11-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

So…

Add this onto the list of cool things I design!

My engineering firm may be designing a replacement for these huge “roof petals” over the top of a waterslide in Atlantis in the Bahamas! Apparently they're currently made of steel and rusting ALOT. The client would like to do it in welded aluminum (which won't corrode as bad near the water), but I have reservations as to how effective that would be. I also would want to see some cables or bracing added to the system; I'm not comfortable with hanging these 20-ft petals over everyone's head by themselves. Also, the biggest problem with aluminum is that when you weld it, it becomes weaker. This means the end product could be ALOT larger than the steel you see in these pictures. I would prefer to make it out of stainless steel, being sure to heat-treat the welds afterwards (stainless steel is composed of chromium, which is displaced when welded; heat-treating the weld restores the chromium which is stainless steel's main helper to resist corrosion).

Maybe I’ll just charge them a couple nights stay!!

Car vs. Storefront and Kneewall: Driving FAIL

2009-10-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

This is epic. Shortly after pulling into this Olive Garden restaurant, this guy actually DROVE INTO the Olive Garden restaurant. Way to go buddy! By the way, the culprits are right there on the bench in the photo. Apparently they slammed on the gas as they tried to park, confusing the pedals and driving through breadstick country.

Nobody likes an intruder...

Check out this broken kneewall and the busted aluminum mull:

I'm wondering what kind of glass this is...it doesn't look like impact, and definitely not laminated. This restaurant is in North Florida, near Clearwater. Maybe their construction standards are lighter (I know the wind speed criteria is less than here in SoFla), or the windows are just old and not impact-rated. I'm sure my window and storefront guru Andrew back at Engineering Express would know plus give me make model and serial number from the factory that made it; I'll have to ask him. BTW, gotta LOVE the fact the handicapped sign would be the preferred parking for these nimwits.

Whoa! Would NOT have wanted to sit at this table.....ouch...

And finally, the interior damage assessment. What a mess.

I don't have time now, but the next time I get an exterior kneewall/storefront design or repair I'll update the blog and educate the masses. Based on my current workload that could be as early as tomorrow....

Well until then, please don't drive through my (or any other engineer's for that matter) professionally designed concrete or glass structures. And please enjoy the all-you-can eat salad and breadsticks.

Report: How the Cowboy's Facility Collapsed

2009-10-20T20:54:00.000-07:00

A federal report released Tuesday on the collapse of the Dallas Cowboys’ practice facility suggested that the structure should have been able to withstand winds stronger than those that hit the building May 2 when it toppled, injuring 12 people, including paralyzing one and brain damage to another.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the structure was hit by 55- to 65-mph winds and should have been able to handle winds of up to 90 mph.

The report suggested the following sequence of events at the time of the collapse, based on the weather conditions at that time:

•Buckling of the inner chord (inner side of the roof truss) of a frame in a section of the roof on the east side resulted in the formation of a kink in the frame.

•Failures of the east and west "knees" (connections between the side walls and the roof) allowed the frame to sway eastward with the wind.

•Compressive failure of the east side at the roof’s highest point (ridge) led to fractures of the nearby inner and outer chords in the vicinity of the ridge.

•A progression of frame failures throughout the structure resulted in total structural collapse.

As a result of the study, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is recommended that similar structures be evaluated for similar safety concerns.

"As a result of our findings, NIST is recommending that fabric-covered steel frame structures be evaluated to ensure the adequate performance of the structural framing system under design wind loads," said John Gross, study leader for the federal agency.

"It confirms what we suspected all along, that it was a dramatically underdesigned structure," he said. "There are a number of other large fabric structures that are supported by steel. I think Texas A&M has a practice facility and WinStar casinos has one of these. If I owned one of these structures, the first thing I’d want is a good structural engineer evaluating this report and my building." (Click here to read the entire article.)

All In A Day's Work...

2009-10-16T13:30:00.000-07:00

Calculations and solving other people's problems are my life. This is a rooftop A/C stand I designed yesterday. The normal type of AC stand wasn't quite strong enough for the expected wind load from a hurricane, and the contractor had no time to reconfigure everything--it had to be fixed ASAP! The eventual solution was adding an aluminum cross-brace to assist with the frame bending. This is why we need computers and widgets!!! Some of my calcs are below:

Engineering Express Succeeds In New Dynamic Web Design Experience

2009-10-16T06:10:00.000-07:00

Pioneers in Engineering Technology, Engineering Express launches innovative program to help companies convert their charts, tables, and dusty book formulas to Web WIDGETS that do so much more.

"I'm amazed that this technology isn't mainstream by now" claims Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., founder of the firm and of this revolutionary connection between engineering formulas and FLASH programming. "I figured that by 2010, this technology would have replaced every PDF and book table, chart, and formula by now" he adds.

(Can't see the widget? Click here)

This is a press release by the company I work for, Engineering Express, regarding their cutting-edge abilities and where they can be used; read more here: http://www.prlog.org/10377144-engineering-express-succeeds-in-converting-catalog-book-tables-to-rich-dynamic-web-experiences.html

Balcony Collapses and How to Avoid Them

2009-10-14T15:00:00.000-07:00

The Causes

The main causes for deck collapses are either post and railing failures, or the connection of the deck ledger board to the house’s rim joist. The ledger board is usually a 2 by 8 or 2 by 10 pressure treated board that is bolted or screwed to the house and holds the joists of the deck. It is estimated that 80 percent of the deck collapses occur at the ledger to rim joist connection.

Deck ledgers should be screwed or preferably bolted to the building rim joists not merely nailed. Properly installed, bolts and lag screws will withstand the expansion and contraction of the wood. They can loosen over time, but will not pull out as nails would. You will notice a gap between the deck and the house is the bolted or screwed connection is loosening. If the ledger board has been nailed to the house, any lateral movement may cause the deck shift to the point of collapse.

Lag bolts and screws must be spaced properly to maintain the deck’s connection to the house. If bolts are spaced too far apart, they can bend if the deck becomes overloaded or is loose. Thirteen people died in a deck collapse in Chicago due to improperly spaced lag bolts.

If the connection between the ledger board and rim joist is not flashed properly, or if flashing was not installed at all, water can get behind the ledger board and cause the rim joist on the house to rot. This is because rim joist are not pressure-treated and will be susceptible to rot if they remain wet over long periods of time Flashing can be installed in the form of either a metal coil cut to the length of the ledger board and bent to fit under the siding and cover the top edge of the board, or in pre-formed flashing that comes in various lengths. Aluminum flashing should not contact pressure treated wood due to a corrosive chemical reaction of these two materials causing the aluminum to dissolve completely over time. New pressure treated wood uses alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ) chemicals for preservation, which is even more corrosive then previous treatments that were applied to wood. You should make sure that the correct anchors were used for attaching the posts to the pier and that cast aluminum porch post supports are not being used. This change in chemical treating also does not allow for making repairs to existing decks. ACQ in new wood will corrode existing connectors within three years. Decks need to be replaced in their entirety once decay has been observed.

Life Safety - Railings

Railings are one of the most obviously safety issues with decks and balconies because it is readily apparent when they are loose. There are many guidelines for railing design and requirements for installation which include height, grasping ability, design loads in both vertical and horizontal direction, space between railings, and even spindle location. Railings also need to be securely fastened to the deck framing with bolts that go completely through the post into a beam or joist. It is unacceptable to notch posts, so make sure that the deck’s support posts are separate from the railing posts. It is important that you inspect the railings at least twice a year and even a sound deck may have problems with the railings that need to be corrected.

The wood used to construct decks should last 20 to 25 years if properly maintained, but decks that are shaded can degrade faster as the wood does not dry out. This process is made worse if the wood has not been stained or painted. In cases such as this the wood loses it structural integrity as well as the ability to hold a fastener.

As wood ages it will expand and contract, causing graying, splintering, and cupping. This is also a sign of the wood losing its structural capabilities and nearing the end of its life cycle. The older the wood is, the more nails and screws will be pulled out from the decking and joists.

Make sure you have a qualified engineering firm that is competent in analysis of this kind, such as Engineering Express, to ensure appropriate protection and/or remediation.

FAU Needs Duct Tape! And Fast!

2009-10-12T15:00:00.000-07:00

Wow. Amazing sometimes how you can look back at a bad idea. I'm sure whatever engineer designed this walkway at FAU's student apartments wouldn't sleep at night knowing this was hanging over the student's heads:

I'm personally surprised that the bearing key (the block of concrete holding the slab up) was made so small. Over time, the expansion and contraction (i.e. movement) of the walkway probably caused the cracking seen here. It looks like the contractor made it worse by putting just one set of steel shoring posts at the wrong place. The posts needed to help hold up the heavy slab that's causing the cracking, not the small key that's already busted! Hopefully Engineering Express will be called out to fix this mess; I wonder if other engineers would know how to fix this correctly.... and, no, NOT with duct tape!

Construction FAIL

2009-10-05T17:00:00.000-07:00

Cutting straight through a concrete column is not really a great idea...... Just a thought. Found this on an inspection today.

Concrete Tied-Column FAIL:

Engineering: Hardest Job to Fill in America

2009-09-30T05:21:00.000-07:00

Keep your head up, freshly graduated and out of work engineer! According to Forbes, engineering is currently the hardest job right now to fill in America. A direct quote from the story, about why engineers are just so hard to find:

We have whole generations of people loving liberal arts, not going into science and math," says Larry Jacobson, executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers.

Not only is there an incoming student shortage, but there is a large quantity of baby-boomers on the verge of retirement. Particularly in industries like utilities, companies are desperately trying to fill positions before all of their talent walks out the door, taking decades of experience with them.

So it appears engineering still has a very bright future, even if finding a job may be hard at the moment. Remember your career spans 40+ years, this will hardly be the last dip. Of course, these companies are still not going to take just anyone off the street, or necessarily train you from the ground up like the old days. Some relevant co-op experience or a Master's degree will be an invaluable help.

Credit: SGE

The Great Scientific and Technical Dispute - WTC

2009-09-24T17:00:00.000-07:00

If the scientific fight over the World Trade Center was not so hugely important, it might be viewed as simply ridiculous that core elements of an event could be so severely disputed by people equally pledged to the scientific method. But with the stakes so immense, the vastness of the gap is far from ridiculous and is, in fact, of such magnitude that it is almost certainly going to take wide public understanding of the elements of the dispute to force re-examination of the evidence in a manner that would win the trust of both the public and the experts.

(This article is not written by me, but is interesting to read and can also be found here.)

For the record, here is a summary of just some of the technical areas in dispute and what the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and its building trade and science allies on one side and its equally credentialed science, professional and licensed critics (building and structural engineers, architects, physicists, chemists) on the other side, put forward as their cases. It was compiled from NIST’s official report and from analysis that included papers and reports by independent professionals or members of groups representing each side of the argument, as well as from some other independent technical experts who have not taken sides.

The dispute takes place in a context that no other high-rise steel buildings ever collapsed in such a manner without the use of explosives. NIST alleges that in this special-circumstances case the buildings, like the “unsinkable” Titanic, did just that. NIST’s independent critics believe that what is “titanic” here are NIST’s scientific mistakes, evasions and willful refusal to examine all evidence.

Impact of Planes on Steel Columns

NIST reports that of the 47 core columns in each tower, three in WTC 1 were severed, four sustained heavy damage and five sustained moderate damage, adding up to about 25% of the columns. In WTC2 five core columns were severed, four sustained heavy damage and one sustained moderate damage, adding up to about 21% of the columns. NIST argues that in combination with the steel beams weakened by fire after the plane impact stripped fireproofing from the beams, this was sufficient to trigger a general collapse in both towers. Moreover, in both buildings perimeter columns on the exterior were severed, in one of them 35 such columns out of the 240 in each tower.

NIST critics among building professionals argue that the towers were built to survive even if more than 50% of the columns were severed or weakened. A favorite 1964 quote from the professional magazine Engineering News-Record cites the assertions of WTC designers that a catastrophe "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction." NIST responds that designers did not allow for the “unique conditions” of the tower events. Some independent NIST supporters add that the magazine quote itself is more self-promotion than construction reality.
Load Redistribution

NIST estimates that after the airplane crashes severed some beams in each tower, loads on some columns increased by up to 35%. NIST allows that, just as it should have been, the weight of the stories above the severed beams was efficiently distributed to intact beams and to other support elements but notes that, even so, once the fires softened the steel core and trusses bearing the extra load, there was sufficient give to allow the perimeter columns to bend inward and thereby touch off the collapse.

Opposing professionals note that the WTC designers specifically designed for airplane impact (though they concede for a somewhat smaller jet plane). Moreover, to assist load redistribution and for other safety reasons, the designers used a super-strong steel in the beams that, critics say, gave a margin of error allowing beams to handle three times their load capacity. Some critics cite a statistic that the outside perimeter columns could handle increases of 2000% above the designed live load. NIST says it never heard of such a number and doesn’t know its derivation (the authors of this article could not verify its source). Such a number is clearly inaccurate given the events, NIST says.

Dislodged Fireproofing

Absolutely essential to the NIST case is its finding via computer modeling of the damage that “significant amounts” of fireproofing protecting the core steel beams were dislodged from both towers by the impact of the aircrafts, allowing the steel to soften sufficiently (not melt) in the ensuing fires to destabilize the entire building. In one building 43 of the 47 core beams on at least one floor were estimated by NIST to be so damaged. Without this dislodgment, NIST concedes, the airplane crashes and subsequent fires could not have caused the collapse of the two buildings.

Critics point out that there is no hard evidence the fireproofing was stripped on impact or that so many core beams were damaged by fire, the hard evidence having been destroyed or carted away. NIST therefore had to rely on computer models to determine this – a process in which the information chosen to be input was all important. They note that it is simply a NIST hypothesis that significant dislodging occurred. To support this theory, NIST performed laboratory tests in which shotguns pellets were fired at steel surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation like that used in the twin towers. Critics note that the underlying assumption is that a crashing Boeing 757 would have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts needed to dislodge fireproofing from the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas.

Fire and Steel Softening

NIST argues that once the fireproofing was dislodged, the combination of gasoline fire and huge paper and office furniture fires created sufficient general area heat in sufficient time (with the air heated up to 1000C in some areas) so that the steel beams with dislodged fireproofing were able to reach temperatures of 700C, at which point they lost slightly more than half their load-bearing capacity, initiating the collapse. How did NIST come to cite the crucial 700C number? In its own lab tests, NIST found that the steel would soften sufficiently to allow floors to sag if it reached 700C. NIST further notes: “Bare structural steel components, when exposed to a large and sustained fire, can heat rapidly to the point where their ability to support their load is compromised.”

Said NIST spokesman Michael Newman: “NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was the Fire Dynamics Simulator. This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the WTC investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the investigation provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires.

“In a set of computations using the Fire Structure Interface, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures. Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.”

Opposing experts, some with sophisticated calculations in hand, dispute that the temperatures from the fires ever reached the levels cited by NIST in the areas around the core beams. They point out that (1) NIST’s own display chart shows that the highest air temperatures, which NIST estimated lasted only 15 to 20 minutes, were not in the area of the core inner beams and that only 3 perimeter columns of 16 studied had reached a temperature above 250C, while two core columns studied had not even reached 250C. (2) Even in the unlikely event the beams lost 50% of their load- bearing capacity, they had capacity to handle three times the load they were carrying. (3) Steel rapidly transfers heat elsewhere such that no one spot is likely to have become sufficiently hot to lose its load-bearing capacity. (4) NIST states there is no visual evidence for fires close to or in the core of the buildings. (5) In the case of WTC2, all the NIST-claimed fire damage would have had to happen within 52 minutes whereas it took almost an hour and three quarters (102 minutes) for the impact-fire events allegedly to collapse WTC1.

Floor Sagging

NIST reports that impact-area floors sagged just before the collapse, as has happened in other steel-framed buildings under the duress of fire. With its computer-modeling of the collapse, NIST estimated the floors sagged 54 inches, pulling perimeter columns inward, which placed more load on the fire-weakened inner steel columns. For NIST this is another key element in the collapse scenario.

Opposing building professionals argue that no other fire in a steel-framed building ever caused so much floor sag and that in fact NIST’s own tests demonstrated only a few inches of sagging in the middle - and this after two hours in a high-temperature furnace. NIST, some critics allege, could have pumped the statistics fed into the computer in order to achieve a pre-desired outcome, justifying doing so with its questionable hypothesis that the fire-proofing was stripped as severely as NIST estimates.

NIST responds that it tested 17-foot and 35-foot trusses “at two Underwriters Laboratories for impact of the heat. The actual floor trusses that pulled on the perimeter columns were longer spans than we could test, so there would be more sagging than occurred in the laboratory mockups. The 54 inches is the calculated number [by the computer simulators] based on the fire test data.”
Perimeter Column Buckling

NIST claims that crucial evidence that helped steer its research into what brought on the collapse is a film by two Czech brothers showing perimeter support columns near the area of impact bending inwards, thus “applying an inward pressure” on the inner support beams, forcing them to bear some of the load of the perimeter columns. Once it saw the perimeter beams bend in, NIST says, it began to search for the cause which led to its understanding of the sagging floors.

Outside experts find two problems with this. One, NIST has never released the supporting film so that independent tests can be done on whether the perimeter columns actually bent inward or only appeared to do so because of light refraction. Second, to bolster its computer model’s outcome as to the effects of the columns supposedly moving inward, NIST, according to former Underwriters Lab chemist and whistleblower Kevin Ryan, fed into the computer information that “doubled the height of the unsupported wall sections [moving inward], doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation.”

NIST flatly denies Ryan’s claim that any data was doubled or altered at all. It also responds that it does not have the right to release the films and that independent investigators need to deal directly with the film owners, for whom NIST will provide contact information.

A NIST defender, scientist turned computer artist Mike King, wrote on his skeptics website, jnani.org, of the critics collapse theories: “They do not consider the NIST explanation, which points out that the core columns were designed only to withstand compressive loads, whereas the outer columns were the ones designed to withstand all lateral loadings (principally winds up to hurricane speed). As each floor collapsed it would have created lateral forces on the core columns which were sufficient to either tear away the bolts or sever the columns themselves as they ‘peeled’ away from the center.”
Shared Column Instability

NIST reports that the instability in the perimeter columns that spread to the core columns was then sent back to the perimeter columns, magnifying the shock.

Critical building experts dismiss this theory as speculation that is unproven by evidence in the NIST report. Given that each tower’s perimeter measured 832 feet, for such shock to spread to all the columns in the fraction of a second in which the buildings commenced their collapse, would require “a supersonic rate of propagation,” as one critic argues. No such event has ever happened in steel building history, the critics say.
Global Collapse Theory

In its most controversial finding, NIST argues that “global collapse” or “total progressive collapse” of the floors beneath the impact areas of both buildings ensued instantaneously after the impact area gave way and the tops of the buildings came crashing down into the lower sections. The lower sections “provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass,” NIST reported. This happened with near free-fall speed despite the known load-bearing strength of the steel beams holding up the lower floors. As NIST spokesman Newman put it, “It is a simple matter of physics: force equal mass (of the upper stories) plus acceleration. We believe our calculations are accurate and we have had top physicists confirm this is how it could happen.”

NIST adds that the mass of the buildings coming down from the top were sufficient to collapse the lower floors even though photos and videos show the top of both towers breaking up before reaching the crash zone, with a significant amount of the rubble appearing to fall outside of the towers' footprint, thus not impacting at all the lower floors.

Critical outside building professionals and others note that NIST provides no detailed calculations as to how the force of the upper stories was received by the lower ones, only a formula as to how it might have happened, and they cite Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum in which, quite logically they say and as evidenced by other damaged steel buildings, the upward strength and sheer size of the lower buildings mass with its huge steel columns would slow the descent of the upper portion of the buildings, not yield to it and collapse en mass. Not even if all the core steel beams in the fire area gave way, they argue, could global collapse ever occur absent some other force weakening the steel of the lower floors, which would have to come from pre-planted explosives. Absent such explosives, the “weak link” of the most severed or heated steel would have given first, at most causing the upper stories to topple to one side and not, as in two identical buildings, causing a mass and fairly straight-down collapse.

Tellingly, the critics note that the NIST report focuses in massive detail on its analysis of the damage to the impact area that allegedly initiated the collapse and does not provide similar detailed studies of how the lower floors supposedly collapsed. As the NIST report itself concedes, “It [the report] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” The critics insist that such an admission itself invalidates the report.

NIST counters that, to the contrary, once the collapse started, the fact that the lower floors gave way is proof enough that the initiating events were sufficient to cause them to give way. As spokesman Newman said: “In the towers we believe we understand the physics of what happened and it’s a fairly simple conclusion after that. There was no need to build computer models after that as the results were already explained.”

One member of AE911Truth counters, “That is science by imperial fiat, reminiscent of the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo.”

Molten Steel

Crucially, NIST denies that any of the building steel ever turned molten before the collapse, which would take a temperature much greater than it says the fires in the building reached but which an explosive such as thermite would easily generate. NIST argues that the yellow-reddish molten metal clearly seen pouring from one of the buildings was the aluminum from one of the planes turned yellow likely by blending with burning elements of furniture, computers and the like. NIST spokesman Newman further argues that any possible photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony of molten steel being removed from Ground Zero, if such evidence even exists (NIST says it has none), was either aluminum mistaken as steel or steel that had cooked in the heat and fires under the pile generated after the collapse and which were trapped, oven-like, in the debris and earth.

Critical independent professionals pounce on all this, noting that:

(1) NIST only surmised but did not actually test the hypotheses that silvery molten aluminum could turn yellowish-red when compounded with building contents; (2) NIST only studied carefully-selected whole steel sections; (3) there is some eyewitness testimony and a few photos showing that quantities of non-aluminum molten metals were seen above ground and so could not be explained by underground fires; (4) metal fires burned for weeks “consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel," producing temperatures above 2000C, as one NIST-rebutting technical essay claims, and (5) it is physically impossible and absurd beyond science that fires in trapped rubble could burn hotter than the building fires and thus melt fallen steel unless some other chemical element were in place to reinforce those fires. A chemical such as thermite, which contains its own oxygen, would allow burning in oxygen-less underground spaces. The critics also note that NIST admits it never saw or tested any of the molten steel itself, and some of NIST’s lead scientists even deny its existence.

Missing evidence is also an important element here to the critics. NIST based its findings on analysis of 236 steel structure elements, which account for less than 1% of the total steel in the buildings. The vast bulk of the remaining steel was, as is routine with building debris, ordered to be broken up and was sold as scrap, largely to China, within a short time after the cleanup began. Critics say this business-as-usual was akin to selling off evidence from a crime scene and further undermines NIST’s assertions that its investigation comprehensively followed where the evidence led.

The question of molten steel sightings is important and unresolved. AE911 posts some photos and eyewitness accounts of molten steel on its website that its critics challenge as misrepresentative. Brent Blanchard, senior editor for the demolition industry magazine Implosionworld.com and director of field operations for a New Jersey company called Protec Documentation Services, which provides extensive building technical services to the demolition industry, supports NIST with a claim that of numerous debris crew members interviewed by him and his colleagues, none reported seeing molten steel.

Other NIST supporters accept the eyewitness accounts of molten steel cited by AE911 (though the “debunker” website 911myths.com challenges all the eyewitnesses it can identify). They argue, however, that if any melting occurred underground, the oxygen to fuel the fires would have derived from particulate matter in the building walls and contents. One NIST-supporting chemist, Dr. Frank R. Greening, former senior research scientist at Ontario Power Generation, argues that the great amount of aluminum from the cladding of the towers as well as from the planes might well have supplied both the fuel and oxygen needed to help melt the steel in the towers and later underground.

Predictably in the punch-counterpunch world of WTC scrutiny, some technical experts have sought to refute Greening’s claims with their own computations.

The Incendiary “Super” Thermite

Most NIST critics cite as the most devastating potential evidence of explosives the work of Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist who was forced to retire from his tenured professorship at Brigham Young University in Utah after he wrote a highly critical analysis of the NIST twin towers report that was severely rebuked by BYU”s own building engineering department as mistake-ridden because it was outside Jones area of expertise. Based on the article, however, four New Yorkers sent Jones what they claimed was WTC dust for testing. Jones and two other scientists, using BYU’s superb electronic microscope lab, then analyzed and, in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, reported and showed photographs last April of what they said was clear evidence of nano-thermite, otherwise known as super thermite, in the dust. Super thermite easily cuts through steel and is used by the military.

After Jones informed NIST of his findings and invited a dialogue, NIST countered that there was no “clear chain of custody” proving that the dust indeed came un-tampered from Ground Zero. Jones then invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known “chain of custody” dust. NIST has refused to take up the challenge.

Overwhelmingly, the independent professional critics accuse NIST of both gross negligence and making a mockery of the scientific method, given that eight years after the event no tests for explosives residues have been performed. Some assert that NIST willfully violated fire investigation regulations in not testing for explosives and note that many members of the NIST science panel have expertise in thermite and other explosives. The critics attribute such neglect to the self-protective peer-pressure effect of NIST scientists being government employees or contractors, including many defense contractors.
Other Evidence of Explosives

NIST concedes it never tested for explosives or residues largely because no credible evidence of explosives appeared, just as no molten steel samples were presented to it by the independent civil engineers who gathered up the steel to be tested. NIST states there were no credible eyewitness accounts of explosions from 10,000 interviews. And it argues that what appeared to be explosive-like puffs of light and smoke pushing out from various sections of the buildings were “squibs” of heated air and debris forced outward by the immense downward air pressure created as the mass of the buildings collapsed.

Given that the evidence that was available led so clearly to its final published conclusions, NIST says, there was and remains no reason to conduct explosives tests. “We know it wasn’t explosive that brought down the building so why waste the taxpayers money,” is the way NIST spokesman Newman put it.

Critical professional outsiders often angrily dispute every element of this. Their refutations include:

(1)A body of hundreds of eyewitnesses testimony reporting hearing and seeing loud explosions taking place in rapid sequence, including testimony from first responders and live news reports. NIST defenders argue the explosions and explosive sounds likely came from transformers blowing up, particularly the generators along the elevator shafts; from the floors crashing on one another, and from rivets popping en mass from the pressure of the fall. Janitorial staff reports of a huge explosion in the basement of one of the towers before it fell have not been explained.

(2) The fact that the light flashes and smoke emissions NIST labeled dust “squibs” developed in such an unusual pattern in lower floors, far from where the crunch was happening, that they cried out for closer investigation as explosives.

(3) In Building 7, these squibs occurred in a distinct rapid and symmetrical pattern along the line of the building that exactly mirrors controlled demolitions.

(4) Lab evidence from FEMA’s analysis of metal debris, ignored in the NIST report, showed large traces of unexplained sulfur, suggesting to FEMA a “severe high-temperature corrosion attack.” Another lab test by the EPA found the dust contained “one molecule 1.3 diphenylpropane.” According to outside experts, both sulfur and diphenylpropane are by-products of the military super-explosive thermite, whose potential use is also suggested by the severe high temperature damage FEMA found. For its part, NIST notes the EPA study found that 1.3 diphenylpropane was a common ingredient in plastics found in large quantities at Ground Zero and that sulfur from gypsum was also common.

(5) The official lab tests conducted for NIST and for the WTC-adjacent damaged Deutche Bank found widespread evidence of “iron-rich microspheres” which, NIST critics assert, is a byproduct of steel becoming molten, a challenge to NIST’s claim that molten steel existed only in small pockets underground.

(6) NIST itself reported an “unusual flame” right near the molten metal pouring from one of the towers that it said was aluminum from the plane. NIST could not explain what caused the flame and acknowledged it was not the burning aluminum.
The Iron-rich Microspheres

Three separate laboratory tests of dust and materials from the site reported the presence or iron-rich microspheres that, NIST critics assert, could only derive from high pressure or high temperature explosives. The tests were made by the US Geological Survey at the request of NIST, by the independent firm R.J Lee for an insurance investigation, and by NIST-challenger and former BYU physicist Dr. Steven Jones and some scientist colleagues.

Says AE911’s Gage: “The dust clouds are full of these iron-rich microspheres. In the dust from the WTC, you have millions of these tiny, perfectly spherical microspheres of iron. Now, where did they come from? The only way they could have been formed is to have molten iron and then a series of explosions whose incredible force atomizes, if you will, the molten iron into these tiny microspheres.”

Although NIST itself offers no explanation for the microspheres other than some might have formed from underground fires, others do. One of the leading critics of the microspheres and thermite theories is chemist Dr. Frank R. Greening. Greening argues that any thermite-like pockets of heat in the towers might well have derived from the incendiary qualities and heat of aluminum once it reaches a critical temperature – a notion that Dr. Jones and others question in light of Jones’ research that reported finding direct evidence of thermite. Of the microspheres, Greening notes: “The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the [melting point] of pure iron… is possible, indeed probable, in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. The WTC fires produced lots of HCl from the combustion of PVC [plastics]and oxides of sulfur were present from sources such as lead acid batteries, residual fuel oil and gypsum….These complex Al/Si/K/Ca/O phases readily combine with iron oxide at 1000 deg C to form iron-rich calcium/potassium aluminosilicate microspheres on cooling.”

Dr. Jones responds that this is speculation and, in light of his finding traces of thermite, the incendiary provides a better explanation for the required tremendous temperatures to get to the point at which miscrospheres would have been created. Moreover, Greening’s 1000C temperature needed is “a significant difference” from the temperatures NIST claims were generally generated by the WTC fires [NIST stated that if temperatures reached that high, it was for a very brief period in a small area]. Absent the presence of something like super thermite, the brief 1000C temperatures, if in fact achieved just from the fires, would not have been of the duration to produce so many microspheres. Jones adds that a USGS scientist had told him the microspheres might have come from “the cleanup process, cutting steel. Problem is that we have samples from long before the cleanup began.”
Dust Clouds and Pulverization

Anyone who watches the videos of the tops of the two towers as they begin to come apart sees a vast, seemingly explosive mushroom cloud or plume of dust and debris spew outward as if a major explosion took place. The dust cloud reached New Jersey and some of the debris was found hundreds of feet away. Moreover, rather than coming straight down as a unit, the upper floors collapse within themselves as if their steel structure was giving way even without being damaged by the fires burning stories below. Then as the entirety of both buildings came down, vast amounts of their innards were completely pulverized, to the degree that much of the building contents were not found intact. The thick layer of pulverized fine dust and residue spread across lower Manhattan, corroding cars as if there were some toxic substance in them.

The NIST report asserts that every single one of these phenomenon was caused by the magnitude of the tons of material from the tops of the buildings that gained speed and added other tons of toxic materials as the buildings collapsed. And the vast dust clouds that appeared to be a massive explosion in the top floors, NIST asserts, were caused by the force of air being compressed and blowing outward from the building, sending debris flying as well.

As for the upper stories collapsing on themselves first - before their mass hit the lower stories - this was an organic part of the process as the building came apart, as was the pulverization into powder-like dust from the tons of materials and the fires. Furthermore, the corrosive effects of the dust could easily have come from building elements that were burned up or pulverized into the dust, NIST maintains.

Critical building experts dispute each of these assertions. NIST provides no calculations to justify its case that the top of the buildings blew out via exhalation of compressed air instead of via explosives. Moreover, they say, large chunks of matter flew off the building and reached outside perimeter distances from a force that could only have come from explosives. Similarly, there is no evidence of any other collapsed building ever experiencing such intense pulverization except where explosives have been used. As for the highly corrosive dust, normal building and office materials would not cause that; only residues from certain explosives would be so toxic to metals, the critics argue.

AE911’s director Richard Gage says it is “scientifically invalid” that the pneumatic pressure was of such force to account for all the seeming explosion effects – a point argued for and against by physicists who have posted technical papers online

NIST and its independent supporters respond that, in fact, building matter and debris did not, as critics allege, fly so far from the building as to be outside a normal perimeter that could be calculated from the height from which the topmost debris fell and its push by pneumatic air. As for pulverization, they note that no building the size and mass of the twin towers ever collapsed; accordingly, there is no reasonable comp to prove that the dust was an anomaly.

Demolition Footprint

NIST central argument here is that even though all three buildings seemed to follow the classic footprint of a pre-planned demolition, both in the speed and symmetry of the structural collapse, in fact its global collapse theory better explains the anomalies of the events. It cites demolition experts it consulted affirming that all three buildings did not meet the classic demolition model. Many independent demolition experts also support NIST in this claim.

NIST critics do not allege a classic model of demolition in the towers, though they get close to doing so for Building 7. Instead they argue that incendiaries or explosives were used to assure collapse in a manner that could be obscured as to cause, and they cite by name several demolition experts, including eyewitnesses to the events, who attest their belief that explosives were used. Furthermore, the critics hold as wildly improbable the NIST concept that the impact-area core beams all gave way at once, allowing for a symmetrical collapse of both towers nearly simultaneously and in identical manners. (Even more improbabe, they say, was Building 7 crash footprint, with no plane crash into it). Instead, the critics argue, if there was loss of holding power in some beams, the towers would have tilted and crashed in an asymmetrical manner, as other buildings have.

Among NIST defenders is the demolition company Protec, which had a unique window on the WTC event because of three factors: it was monitoring seismic activity in Manhattan routinely (and says its seismic detectors did not record explosions at WTC); its multiple TV monitors normally used to capture news coverage of demolitions was able to record all the 9/11 news reports and their timing, and it was called in to assist cleanup crews and in doing so gathered much testimony and photographs from the crews.

“Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available…rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck…That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse…” Protec’s Blanchard wrote in a report disputing the presence of explosives to which some of his Protec colleagues contributed.

Typically, Protec and Blanchard are challenged in very specific detail by several technically-oriented Truthers. As just one example, the Alameda, CA., software engineer Jim Hoffman, whose specialty is visualization of mathematics and who created his own 9-11 web site, wrote that Blanchard “provides no evidence to support most of his assertions, cherry [picks] a few issues to address, and promotes common misconceptions, such as that demolitions must proceed from the ground up.” Like AE911’s Gage, Hoffman also notes (as do others) that there is distinct evidence of building movement above the impact zone before the collapse.

Says AE911’s Gage: “In the twin towers, it's very explosive. You can see the explosions in all the videos, and what's happening is the explosions are creating this incredible dust cloud right in the beginning, even before the gravitational potential of this top portion, which we're told drove the building all the way down to the ground. But the dust clouds are forming immediately.”

The TV Antenna

Videos show the large transmission antenna atop the north tower began to move downward and slightly laterally just before the outer walls showed movement. The antenna appears to sink somewhat into the building, suggesting that the massive center core steel was collapsing even before there was any visible outside evidence of collapse. NIST attributes this anomaly to events happening to the core columns below: The videos show tilting southward consistent with the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and the initiation of collapse. The NYPD photographs seven minutes before collapse show the inward bowing clearly.” NIST reports.

Critics point out that NIST provides no quantitative analysis of the anomaly which, they allege, is far more easily explained by the presence of demolition charges going off.

The Computer Modeling

NIST painstakingly built an elaborate computer model to examine the core elements of the initiation of the buildings collapse from impact and fire. (It concedes, as already noted, that it did only calculations and not intense computer simulation of how the lower floors failed to resist the falling upper stories.) Responding to critics assertions that it adjusted some of the data before entry, NIST says it adjusted input only within the bounds of physical reality. It cites as proof of its work that its many safety recommendations have been adopted by the international body that promulgates construction codes.

NIST critics challenge several of the calculation that were input and, perhaps more importantly, note that NIST has not given full disclosure of the data it input, which would allow the data to be tested by others. One engineering magazine reported that NIST has refused to show computer visualizations of the collapse despite a call from fire and building engineers to see the data. NIST has also refused to submit its finding to an independent panel or journal for peer review, relying instead on a form of review from outside contractors it has hired, most of whom have Defense Dept. contracts.

NIST’s Newman responds that NIST is barred from releasing all the data critics want: “Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act” (the authority under which the WTC investigation has been conducted), certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this investigation is "voluntarily provided safety-related information" that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information… In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements. Anyone wanting this information can go to the specific sources and we will provide the contact data. All of the data that NIST generated has been made public.

“NIST established a secretariat to coordinate NIST-level activities in support of the investigation and to maintain ongoing liaison with the Executive Branch, Congress, the public, and the news media. NIST has maintained an ongoing liaison with the professional community, the public, and local authorities over the course of the investigation through briefings, presentations, and opportunity for comment on key investigation reports. NIST also assigned a special liaison to interact with the families of building occupants and first responders. A Web site dedicated to the WTC investigation has been maintained at http://wtc.nist.gov. The final report on the WTC towers is available there in its entirety (43 documents totaling some 10,000 pages). The Web site also provides access to the WTC investigation archives where the public can follow the complete history of the effort so far, including the two interim progress reports, two public updates and 22 news releases issued during the WTC towers portion of the investigation, as well as documentation from eight public meetings, eight media briefings, seven meetings of the NCST Advisory Committee, and the September 2005 technical conference on putting the NIST recommendations from the WTC towers study into practice.”

Building 7

NIST critics often cite the collapse of the 47-story WTC Building 7 as the premier evidence that incendiaries and/or explosives were present given that no fireproof dislodging plane ever struck the high-rise and no other high-rise building of its size had ever collapsed from fire. NIST asserts that its most elaborate computer modeling went into its report on Building 7, which took three years to assemble and, NIST says, demonstrates how the building fell in what seemed to be a controlled demolition pattern without being struck by a plane and without explosives.

Says NIST: “Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.”

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” NIST’s Building 7 Team leader Dr. Shyman Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”

NIST adds that the seven hours of fires were so intense, and with the sprinkler system gone, firefighters were fearful of entering the building.

Independent NIST defenders concede that fire has brought down smaller buildings but none before over 15 stories. They point out, however, that some fires like that of the Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Oakland have caused steel to collapse and have caused partial collapse in some other buildings. Building 7’s collapse, they argue, while it may superficially have resembled a controlled demolition far more than did the twin towers collapse, in fact the seven hours of intense fires would have destroyed any pre-planted explosives which, had they gone off, would have registered on seismic detectors – none did, they say, though in another war between technical experts, this is disputed in online papers and blogs.

The NIST defenders also cite firefighter reports that the physical damage to Building 7 was greater than shown by most photos, to the degree that when combined with the fires, fire officials reported that they expected the building to collapse even sooner than it did. NIST defenders also cite a collapse pattern that, when looked at closely, does not in fact replicate that of a controlled demolition. Finally, they point out that most of the eyewitness reports of sounds like explosions occurred at the fall of the towers, not in regard to Building 7.

Independent building professionals dismiss the NIST findings and defenders as prejudiced and irrelevant given that, as with the twin towers, NIST refuses to test for explosives. They note that Building 7 is the single only high-rise to fall solely from fire – which, they point out, it was built to withstand. More tellingly, they affirm their professional belief that it is impossible that any modern high-rise designed to meet building code standards could collapse because of failure of one support beam, which building codes specifically guard against. The critics argue that NIST likely pumped wrong data, highly questionable hypotheses and forced extrapolations into its Building 7 computer models in order to explain why Building 7 fell rather than follow the logic of testing for demolition residues.

As to Building 7’s collapse pattern, AE911’s Gage and others concede that a traditional demolition collapse pattern would not have been likely or planned for anyway, even though Building 7’s collapse pattern seemed to come somewhat close to it. Instead, they argue, any culprits who planted either incendiaries such as thermite (their most likely case) or explosives would do so only to magnify the impact of the incoming airplanes. Accordingly, the culprits would not likely have even tried to plant traditional demolition cutter charges (for which they concede there would not likely have been the long and open access time in the building needed) either in the towers or Building 7. Instead, relatively small amounts of super-thermite and detonators placed quickly in obscure areas of the buildings could have accounted for the collapses.

Thursday, September 17, 2009
By Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/elements-great-scientific-and-technical-dispute/

How can students learn so much?

2009-09-21T16:00:00.000-07:00

According to a diverse group of civil engineers who met to discuss the future of the profession, by the year 2025 a civil engineer will be:

Entrusted by society to create a sustainable world and enhance the global quality of life. Civil engineers serve competently, collaboratively, and ethically as master: planners, designers, constructors… stewards of the natural environment… innovators… managers of risk and uncertainty caused by natural events and other threats, and leaders in decisions shaping public environmental and infrastructure policy.

Wow! That’s a really tough charge. The statement is a great rallying cry for the importance and prestige of civil engineers, but can one realistically master so many subjects? In 2008, an ASCE committee was tasked with determining the Body of Knowledge (BOK) necessary to meet these ideals.

The resulting document spells out 24 different areas for prospective professionals to study. Subjects like math, mechanics, and technical specialization are common to most traditional degree programs. However, the committee suggested many new topics that weren’t even on the radar when I was in school. 10 Sustainability – Analyze systems of engineered works for sustainable performance; 17 – Public Policy – Apply process techniques to simple problems related to civil engineering works; and 19 – Analyze engineering works and services in order to function at a basic level in a global context.

Collectively, the new Body of Knowledge asks engineers to, “master more mathematics, natural sciences, and engineering science fundamentals; maintain technical breadth; acquire broader exposure to the humanities and social sciences; and achieve greater specialization.”

Colleges already struggle to integrate practical tools and procedures used by industry into the curriculum. How do you fit all of these new subject areas into a degree program? For one, engineering students should get used to the idea of going on to pursue a master’s degree. More on the job training and exploratory learning is also suggested. However, the authors of the Body of Knowledge purposefully want to raise the bar. More responsibility is placed on students and young engineers to actively seek education in these competencies.

The problem is that you really can't fit all the required knowledge / learning into today's 4-year curriculum. The National Academy of Engineering did a study a few years ago and concluded that it is no longer possible to fit everything that is necessary into a traditional 4-year engineering degree. This is further complicated when you realize that a "traditional 4-year" engineering curriculum in 1960 was 145 hours and is now, on average, 128 hours. As life and engineering got more complicated, and the required knowledge grew, the number of hours available was reduced (by the legislative funding process). The solution is additional education - a master's degree or other, equivalent, formal education process. This is, of course, followed by practical experience, because some of what is in the BOK must be learned on the job. But, some of it must be learned through the educational process, as well. We need more education, and more focused on-the-job education.

Excerpt from http://bit.ly/Nnpk6

Advice Needed - What can I do with this engineering technology discovery?

2009-09-21T09:02:00.000-07:00

I'm looking for ideas, partners, and places to use this natural evolution for simplifying engineering calculations. Watch this brief video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83VorCuSVRg

Essentially, we have discovered an easy way to create dynamic calculations from static charts, tables, and formulas. These web friendly 'widgets' can simplify finding answers, provide easy interpolation, and reverse 'what if' questions.It's like the evolution of the phone book, and as powerful as the calculator from the slide rule. There are a few national companies that have hired us (www.powers.com for example, see the 'Power Calc' at http://www.powers.com/powercalc/ , it's their entire anchor catalog in one big widget, interpolation and all), but we feel there is an incredible opportunity for them out there, we just don't know where to go to show them off.

See more of them here: http://www.engexp.com/exos/widgets.cfm

and the bigger versions: http://www.engexp.com/exos/tools.cfm

Contact me, troyb@engexp.com for any help, advice, or interest you have.

Now THIS is Engineering!

2009-09-16T14:00:00.000-07:00

Ever seen a river over another river? Even after you see it, it is still hard to believe! Water Bridge in Germany:

Six years, 500 million euros, 2,754 feet long.......now this is engineering!
This is a channel-bridge over the River Elbe and joins the former East and West Germany , as part of the unification project. It is located in the city of Magdeburg , near Berlin. The photo was taken on the day of inauguration.

To those who appreciate engineering projects, here's a puzzle for you armchair engineers and physicists.

Did that bridge have to be designed to withstand the additional weight of ship and barge traffic, or just the weight of the water?

Answer:
It only needs to be designed to withstand the weight of the water!
Why? A ship always displaces an amount of water that weighs the same as the ship, regardless of how heavily a ship may be loaded. It's called the Archimedes' principle.

Voiceover Tutorial First of Its Kind

2009-09-10T06:50:00.000-07:00

Well I don't have much to post this week--it's been fairly busy at work (read: the building departments are killing me) and I haven't had much interesting news come across my desk. I did find a fairly interesting article about Engineering Express (although I think we may have written it--shameless self-promotion :) ) through my Google Alerts. The article is called "Engineering Express - Where Engineering Meets Technology."

I also created a Youtube video describing how to use one of my firm's most used tools called a "Wind Pressure Calculator" which (as you may have guessed) calculates wind pressure on an object. The calculator can be found here and the tutorial video is below. Enjoy!

Technology, Widgets, and Engi-tainment

2009-09-02T16:34:00.000-07:00

If you thought I spent 5 years in college studying engineering so I could sit in a cubicle all day, you're wrong. Now I get to be on film! I know I'm such an amazing actor and will probably be a superstar in no time, ESPECIALLY since America is so enthralled with structural engineering.

No, seriously folks, I'm now online with EXtv, the newest, hippest, most educational and technothusial form of engi-tainment on the web (by the way, engi-tainment is a mix of engineering and entertainment; you should have known that). Not that we've been all that entertaining so far, but give us a break engineering is a technical subject that takes alot to explain!

We shoot the video at our enormous production facility in South Florida (I like to call it Engineering Express). We have a plethora of producers, actors, extras, and models that I work with every day just to get the show going (the models especially go after my co-host Randald, our producers Keith and Colby, and our cameraman/Exec Producer Frank). We edit the video with top-dollar editing equipment (a.k.a. any software we can get for free online), and upload each episode with expensive servers and digital equipment (gotta love Youtube).

Anyway, the show features engineering, technology, and educational highlights, especially anything related to hurricane protection. Myself and Randald will try to steer the content in a direction that appeals to all types of people, not just engineers. We'll go over how to make your life easier with Widgets, how to navigate the weird and confusing ways of construction in South Florida, what to look out for regarding structural engineering and the next big things, all the while attempting to throw some humor and entertainment into the whole shabang.

You might enjoy the pilot episode, located on the Engineering Express channel at Youtube. Since you're following my blog and I have a big ego that needs to be fed, I'll go ahead and embed the second episode (mostly me sharing my amazing knowledge of everything in the universe) right here. Enjoy and tune in often.

Technology Should Have Been There...

2009-08-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

I'm a huge supporter of engineering interwoven with cutting-edge technology, and here's why: DO IT CORRECTLY ONCE AND IT NEVER FAILS. There's that old saying "why is there never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over?" which is especially evident in the structural engineering field. Some people are perfectly willing to work with a flawed design in the interest of savings, but then get upset when they need to do it over the correct way. Technology can solve this problem. If an engineer creates a structural design using technology, he can invest his time and energy in the critical areas, and can even re-create or revise those results within seconds. Even better, the engineer can be instantly notified if he's over-designing or under-utilizing parts of his structure. A simple change in the thickness of a structural tube can save thousands of dollars on the project (thereby making his engineering more valuable).

For instance, this picture has been floating around the internet for a few months:

This building's demise was probably caused from a multitude of errors, but here's my opinion of a typical example and how this led up to a failure:

The soil engineer didn't test the ground properly, or didn't report the results correctly, to the structural engineer.
The structural engineer assumes the soil engineer knows what he's doing and takes the results at face value. He then designs an appropriate foundation from the data he was given.
The contractor receives the structural engineer's directives, and thinks to himself "well I don't think they need to be quite that big, or quite that deep. I'm sure if I go 6" short I'll be able to make a profit, plus I doubt anyone will ever find out."
The structural engineer, unaware of the changes being made to his design, inspects and approves a foundation that is actually smaller than it should be, but without communication or checks on the contractor, nobody's the wiser.
The weight of the building eventually overcomes the resistance of the soil, and it tips over.

Now I'm not saying that computers will fix everything. Far from it. But if technology would have been better utilized in this situation, all professionals involved would have been more informed. The contractor could have even used a simple widget to double-check if that 6" made a difference in the weight or bearing of the footer, by modifying this simple widget below:

Next up, and my personal favorite, is the Google Engineer. You didn't know Google had structural engineers all over the place did you? Well, technically it's called Google Earth. The full-blown advent of technology in the last 5 years has created ways for engineers to review structures that we never even thought possible before. Here's an example:

A building in NYC was cited for having a crack running from the first floor to the third. The May 1 complaint from the Building Department says “Approx 1/2 inch to 1 inch wide vertical crack line in east wall (east south corner) facade from 1st to 3rd floor.” The inspection also found cracks on the interior wall on the third and fourth floors.

Google Street View had actually caught the image of the building around this same time, which clearly shows the crack running up the side:

The building eventually did collapse, but fortunately did not hurt anyone. Here's the aftermath:

While Google Street View is sometimes viewed as invasive, this shows an unexpected benefit: images that once seemed irrelevant are suddenly at the center of a major news event. Engineers can learn from this by using technology creatively and more proficiently. Just imagine what will be here in another 5 years....we'll probably have a McDonald's of Engineering (hint: it's called Engineering Express).

Power in the Ocean - World's First "Real" Floating Wind Turbine

2009-08-18T05:22:00.000-07:00

Since my career first began in Ocean Engineering, I've always been interested in the growth and technology from the Marine industry. My biggest complaint, however, is the lack of resources that exploit this huge unexplored territory. The ocean has an almost infinite number of power sources--we can create power from offshore currents, from the ocean wind, from the jetstream, from the sun....you name it and the ocean has a place to put it. Well, finally, the world is being introduced to the first large-scale ocean wind turbine. It's 240-feet across, 120-feet up in the air, and extends about 300-feet deep. The best part is it's not founded in the seabed--IT'S FLOATING!! The manufacturer, Siemens, "anchored the structure to the seafloor with three wires and a control system enables the turbine to dampen the effects of wave-induced motion." Sounds structurally difficult but I like it! Personally, I would have created a multitude of smaller turbines that actually sit in the ocean and are constantly powered by waves, because this huge mammoth (which works intermittently because it's based on wind) only has a 2.3MW output (only enough to power about 2000 homes in a year). Those smaller turbines would actually be double-helix's and look similar to a DNA strand--creating the most surface area for multi-directional waves to penetrate. Either way I'm glad a major corporation is making strides in renewable power. Maybe someone will see my double-helix idea and make me a millionaire or at the very least copy my blog and make me famous. Not holding my breath.

By the way, what the heck is up with the Chevy Volt? According to this article, the car can get up to 230 MPG. Is it just me or is this a glaring admission that the American car companies have always been just a few steps away from truly renewable sources of power and simply waited until the last possible moment to roll out the technology? I find it hard to believe we magically made our technology 1000% more efficient within five years (going from 23 MPG to 230 MPG). Soon I hope our society starts to work with technology instead of against it, or we may all be living on our own floating turbine.

Information courtesy of CE magazine www.pubs.asce.org

Engineering Salaries Going Up!

2009-08-13T07:27:00.000-07:00

Just read an article in Civil Engineering magazine that despite the recession, the salaries of engineers continue to go up year by year. The survey found that between April 2008 to April 2009 the median base salary of professional engineers rose almost 10%, from $85,000 to $92,000 annually. That's great news for me! Even better, my own field of structural engineering actually saw base salaries go up 12%! This is great news and shows that America is starting to finally see professional engineers for what they are--valuable assets to the safety and civility of society. Without engineers, you wouldn't even have a computer to read my blog. Although I still have to wait another 3 years for my own license in 2012 (right when the world ends), I'm glad that reports are finally coming out which make me feel more comfortable about choosing the right major. So now, not only do I love my job, but I'll be quite well off in doing it.....and will build my billion-dollar dream house in just a few short decades.

I also added some more GOOGLEJUICE (as Jeff Jarvis calls it) to my name. I now have a Google profile (which oddly enough doesn't even show up when you search for me, go figure) as well as a claimID account. ClaimID is a cool way to collaborate your digital self and put all the links into one simple site. My new claimID is www.claimid.com/troybishop and my new Google profile is http://www.google.com/profiles/troy.engexp. I even collected my sweet widget page at http://www.engexp.com/exos/widgets.cfm and a couple more profile pages at http://www.engexp.com/employee.cfm?employee_id=51 , http://www.linkedin.com/in/troysbishop. (Sorry about all the links, but I was told this would increase my exposure!)

My claimID

Information courtesy of CE magazine www.pubs.asce.org

Damaging Winds

2009-08-11T10:54:00.000-07:00

As you know by now I'm obsessed with the damage wind can do. I just found this great article called "The Hidden Story of Storm Protection." by Frank Bennardo, P.E. Few people realize how complex and pervasive wind can be on a structure, but he breaks it down into easy to understand terminology. I didn't fully realize that the second function of a shutter is to reduce internal pressurization. The ability for wind to get into any and all spaces brings to mind a condo a few months ago that I got a chance to evaluate, which essentially failed during Hurricane Wilma because a resident (understandably) got scared when the violent winds shook the building and his balcony windows imploded.

This is what happened:

1) The implosion of the balcony windows suddenly increased the air pressure and flying glass shatter inside the apartment.

2) Panic took over and the residents forced the entrance door to open establishing a wind tunnel inside their hallway corridor. Once outside the door was released and slammed violently.

3) The pressure difference and the molecules expanding and contracting within his condo found its way into the interior hallway and blew the corridor's exterior exit door open, equalizing the full pressure difference and releasing energy towards the interior partition walls which collapsed.

4) Additional energy sources came into play such as stairwells to the roof exit and continued the destruction of interior walls and finishes.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated during Hurricane Wilma, even a small breach of the building envelope will impose excessive loads which can lead to failure. Do it right....get it engineered!

Lessons Learned from Stadium Lightpole Collapse

2009-07-14T06:16:00.000-07:00

This was a fascinating article about a Texas-based firm that engineered and installed 80-foot-plus metal lighting poles all over the nation, mostly in high schools. The picture above is what they looked like a year later.

What happened? As always, a combination of things. The key thing to me is the lessons that should be learned by the design engineer, and highlights the industry problem that too many contractors are looking for "the man with the span" - the cheapest engineer with the tallest, highest, largest capacities, regardless if they're right or not.

Reports of more falling stadium poles surface

From this article.

The Texas Association of School Business Officials sent an e-newsletter to 5,000 members four weeks ago after a March 6 incident in which a 125-foot Whitco pole at the Hays school district's Bob Shelton Stadium in Buda toppled and slammed onto a gymnasium. At least 60 people were in the stadium at the time. The gym was empty.

In April 2007, a 90-foot Whitco pole fell to the ground at Applebee's Park, home to the minor-league Lexington (Ky.) Legends. The pole, which had been installed in 2001, fell away from the stadium, into an empty parking lot.

Although it was a gusty day, "the wind was certainly well less than the approved threshold" that guaranteed the poles' ability to withstand 90 mph winds, team President Alan Stein said. A subsequent examination revealed cracks in three other poles, so the team replaced all four, he said. "We decided it wasn't worth taking a chance."

The new poles and lights cost the Legends about $200,000, he said.

Possible causes

Forensic engineers called in to examine individual cases of the falling Whitco poles have reached different conclusions.

A report on a 90-foot pole that crashed to the ground at Worcester Technical High School in Massachusetts in February 2007 said a faulty weld holding the tall tube to the base plate was to blame. "Fatigue cracking caused by wind-induced vibrations" toppled a 5-year-old, 130-foot Whitco pole at the Round Rock school district's athletic complex in December, according to a January report by an Austin engineering firm.

A review of six of the toppled poles conducted by a Texas lighting pole manufacturer, however, has uncovered a common thread. CHM Industries Inc. of Saginaw evaluated the Whitco failures by examining the design specifications of each of the projects.

The first thing CHM noticed was that based on the failed poles' size and design, the stresses on the structures were extremely severe, according to a company engineer who said he didn't want his name printed because of company policy.

In a letter sent to its customers, CHM explained that the engineering safety margin of error on the poles was virtually zero.

That alone is not necessarily significant, several engineers said. Pole companies looking to bid competitively often shave the amount of metal needed to withstand the stress of wind and weight extremely close to their engineering tolerances.

Makers Co. president Greg Haskin, who said his company only welded the shafts to baseplates according to Whitco's specifications, said that in about 2000, when Whitco was purchased, some of the company's designs changed. In failed Whitco poles Haskin has since examined, he said, "some of them basically were overloaded. The base plate should have been a thicker base plate. The tube should've been thicker for the load. It appears that some of these poles were underdesigned."

CHM's analysis, summarized in the letter sent to customers, found that Whitco appears to have made mathematical errors in its design. In several instances, for example, the company's engineers seem to have based their stress calculations on the height of the pole, according to CHM. While such calculations are sufficient for street lighting, they can be inaccurate for tall athletic lighting towers where the light fixtures generally are attached to the top of the pole, effectively adding another six feet or so to the height.

By failing to account for the extra height, CHM's analysis found, several of the Whitco poles appear to have been underdesigned — the metal at the base was too thin to withstand the stress for the pole's actual size. In other instances, CHM determined that Whitco appeared to have miscalculated the area of the lights and fixtures attached to the poles, which also would add unaccounted-for stress to the base.

The CHM engineer said that in one instance, lighting and other fixtures added to the pole later caused the structure to exceed its engineered capacity.

"We do not know how many poles have been supplied by Whitco during this time frame or what percentage of their towers exhibit the same design flaw," the letter, dated March 31, concluded. "What we do know is that there is a serious cause for concern in regard to installations of this nature as produced by Whitco in or around the year 2002."

How to Get Hired at a World-Class Engineering Firm

2009-05-29T15:37:00.000-07:00

I have to get this off my chest; I don't want it to come off mean, but I hope this becomes a resource for engineering students or graduates who need help understanding the "mysteries" behind the doors of an engineering firm.

My engineering and tech firm, Engineering Express, is (in my opinion) one of the best and brightest in the industry. Obviously we didn't become that in a day, but we have worked tirelessly to get it there.

It all boils down to people. People are like the gears and equipment that keep a car moving; if you've got just a tire and a steering wheel you don't have a car that will go anywhere. But if you can get the other pieces and parts and put it all together, you can everything move--the people make it all happen. In regards to our own people at EX, we want and expect certain qualities. We need job skills, work attitudes, and personalities that will help us continue our vision and carry on our legend.

Job Skills

Job applicants to an engineering and design firm like Engineering Express should really analyze their skills and compare them to those required for the job. Do your research on the company interviewing you; look at their website, Facebook, Twitter, or other pages. Take an interest in what they do before you even get to their office. If you feel like you can't find an interest, you're probably at the wrong office. Also, your previous jobs, even if very different, may have given you skills that prove helpful. For example, a person with experience as a contractor may have the ability to be a great value-engineer or an inspector. Make note of these qualifications in your job interview, and relate some ideas on how you would utilize those skills to make your future employers profitable.

Problem-Solving Skills

Being able to solve problems is probably the most important skill an engineer will ever have, period. Don't be intimidated by problems--they're really opportunities. When you begin to formulate your own theories they will take on a life of their own and you can find a passion for finding the best solution. Think of your own experience in terms of how you solved problems. Then, relate those problem-solving skills to the engineering design job that you want.

Communication Skills

Any efficient design, engineering, and technology firm needs effective communications to run smoothly. It's a very simple thought, but one that can present the biggest downfall for engineering firms due to the complexity and real-time changes that occur every day in every active construction project they have on the books. The "Engineer Version 2.0" must streamline the data stream from each project, determine the next plan of action, and continually process and manage project information thereafter. His life literally depends on it. My firm does a great job of tracking projects and continuously synchronizing all the information that goes along with the 50,000+ every year. On the interview side, we can see whether the applicant can communicate effectively in their letter of introduction, cover letter, resume, and of course the interview. Successful applicants use these tools to show how their skills and qualifications will carry over into our firm.

Teamwork

Teamwork is just the ability to get along well with the people you have to work with every day; not just your co-workers, but also your current or prospective clients. You have to be able to put your team's needs above your own at times, and then take direction and criticism if needed. You can only get better if you know you're not good enough, and an employee who is skilled, but too argumentative or too sensitive, can stand in the way of his own and the company's success.

Dedication

Any design and engineering firm needs workers who are willing to put in the extra effort it takes to satisfy a customer, get training if needed, and essentially just be honest and dependable.

Personality and Life Skills

I love having co-workers that know themselves, can express their personality, and are comfortable with change. I also feel that my current colleagues manage their lives well enough that their personal problems don't interfere with our work. It's not that I expect them to have perfect situations – life sucks sometimes with finances or personal challenges – but it's that they handle it before it affects their work performance.

Attitude

I can't say enough about how important it is for me to work with people that have a positive work attitude. We all put extra effort into our jobs and focus on the good in pretty much any situation.

Employability Skills

To sum it all up, I would call the most important skills "employability skills" where you can:

Adapt to changing demands of a job
Be accurate
Be creative and innovative
Be flexible
Concentrate on several parts of a job at once
Not prevent me from finishing my own tasks
Plan and organize work
Stick with a task and keep busy

My firm generally looks for all of the above, with consideration to the fact we’re all human so it’s not fair to completely preclude someone for anything. We take a look at as many prospective hires as we can, and try to use a benchmark for particular positions to judge how an applicant would handle the work (something that generally includes a typical drawing and some calculations) . Once we agree on a good benchmark for the new prospects we then apply a uniform standard to certain capabilities and make a well-informed decision.

Long story short: my perfect job applicant needs to come to an interview ON TIME with at least a minimal grasp of what we’re doing, perform a job himself even if it takes all day, and ideally I would repeat the process with several applicants. At least in this economy, time is on the employer's side and nobody ever wants to settle. We all work better through personal synergy, and it shouldn't be at risk for just any hire. The market is in an employer's favor anyway, so they will always hold out for the best they can get that will still be here alongside them in the years to come.

Give the Customer Control and They'll Use It

2009-04-29T04:48:00.000-07:00

"No User-Servicable Parts Inside"

This familiar warning label, alerting users to some unmentionable peril lurking just beneath the Phillips head screws, symbolizes everything that is wrong with today's customer relationships. By discouraging users from experimenting on the "inside," companies undermine their greatest source of competitive advantage.

Business pundits implore us to listen to the customer. Especially the "early adopter," who is often portrayed as the "mine canary" of new product development.

Yet the customer's view of the future are not really trusted. As Dorothy Leonard and Jeffrey Rayport reported in the article "Spark Innovation Through Empathic Design":

"People can't ask for what they don't know is technically possible.. (their) imagination, and hence their desires, are bounded by experience."

In other words, people do and experts think. Yet for every designer, engineer and marketer busy thinking, there are a thousand times as many customers using their products under real-world conditions. And maybe, just maybe, a small percentage are as creative as any expert. So why aren't customers viewed as the primary source of new product innovation?

Because their hands are tied. Too many companies undermine their customer's ingenuity by thoughtlessly or arrogantly withholding the right set of tools -- tools which let them innovate as peers of the experts.

Consider the origin of the PC:

No one designing mainframes in the 60s expected customers to master the arcane technology of "big iron" computing. Then, in 1969, the Computer Terminal Corporation of San Antonio, Texas shipped the Datapoint 2200.

The Datapoint 2200 was basically a display, keyboard and modem, intended for remote mainframe data entry. But manufacturing a line of so-called dumb terminals to attach to all possible mainframes was expensive. So the company wisely designed the 2200's circuits for flexibility; emulating a broad range of dumb terminals though software.

A month after shipment the CTC engineers were frantic. Why had so many 2200s stopped dialing up the computer data center?

Turns out those pesky users made a seminal discovery. The damn thing was programmable! Happily ignoring the "no user serviceable parts inside" - label, they quickly wrote their own payroll, accounting and factory automation software.

Computing was now personal, and the mainframe suddenly redundant.

Just as importantly, Computer Terminal contracted with Intel to replace their board full of transistors with a custom integrated circuit. Later offered commercially as the 8008 microprocessor, this circuit was the direct ancestor of the Pentium.

Ingenuous users, accidentally handed the right tools, envisioned the future of computing nearly a decade before the rest of the industry. Following George Bernard Shaw's observation, "The Reasonable man adapts to nature. The unreasonable man seeks to adapt nature to himself. Therefore all progress is made by the unreasonable man," these determined users should be called "Early Adapters."

When Early Adapters have the right tools they can out-innovate any company. Early Adapters strapped shopping carts to their luggage years before sturdy wheels were integrated into suitcases. Years before focus groups brought Early Adopter luggage preferences to the attention of experts.

On the Internet, communications tools are freely available. So it should come as no surprise that a lone physicist, rather than a communications company, invented the World Wide Web for sharing documents with his colleagues. Rampant user innovation is the principal reason the Internet market continues to grow three times faster than the PC industry.

There is a lesson here for astute companies. Why not harness untapped user innovation by systematically providing tools, technical advice and feedback to their customers?

Automobiles are an example of a tightly engineered, closed environment ripe for change. Ever try to find a convenient niche to store your briefcase without arm-twisting contortions? Or modify the automatic transmission shifting pattern to fit your driving style?

Imagine the leverage a forward-looking automotive company might gain by setting aside a removable portion of the dash for customer innovation. Sure, they would sell fewer CD players. But, think of the increase in car sales to users eager to install portable offices, a custom dashboard, or a microwave oven. Not to mention potential license revenue. Or increased customer loyalty.

The same is true for the VCR. How many customers would design a VCR to blink 12:00 long into the night? None, of course. But given control over the VCR interface, they'd immediately snap in a clock with real hands and knobs for setting the time. Or a clear door to confirm a tape is loaded. Or yet another microwave oven for popcorn.

Early Adapters are eager to speak -- but first they must be given a voice.

Text adapted from and copyright of http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/nouserparts.htm

Open Letter to Jeff Jarvis of WWGD (What Would Google Do?)

2009-04-21T05:58:00.000-07:00

I just read a very well-written and thought-provoking open letter to Jeff Jarvis, author of "What Would Google Do?" (a book I've been reading). The letter petitions him for suggestions on how to revolutionize the engineering industry in the same way Jeff has predicted the web transformation of the business of journalism. I'm so amazed at how much potential for innovation, creation and invention exists now that the world is fully connected at almost every level. In my opinion, we live in a different world from just a few years ago--now, the probability of a young person my age making billions of dollars on one single invention is completely realistic.

Read the letter for yourself here: http://www.engineeringexpress.blogspot.com/

2009-04-12T15:35:00.001-07:00

This widget will determine the wind pressure on any building component. Try it!

Test widget

2009-04-10T15:44:00.001-07:00

This is just one example of the amazing capabilities of Engineering Express. Let us create one for your business!

Engineering Express is what's missing

2009-03-30T16:36:00.000-07:00

If you don't know already, I'm a graduate of Civil Engineering from Florida Atlantic University and I currently work at a firm called Engineering Express. Seriously, I am amazed by the way this engineering firm does things. The philosophy goes like this: Starbucks revolutionized coffee because they figured out a way to do mass production and assembly-line their product. Home Depot did the same. These industries realized that there are unchanging “recipes” that can be done correctly once, then sold over and over again. That’s what Engineering Express is trying to do for structural engineering (we do hurricane resistant windows and doors, shutters, canopies, building columns and walls, etc.). So now, for every project, the theory is to never have to calculate or design the same thing twice. We log everything into our database that’s run through SQL (website all made from scratch with Coldfusion to help), track the project so the client can see how we’re progressing or when we’ll be finished, and all the design and number crunching is done almost automatically. Of course we still have to review the numbers for safety, but our calculations give us a great way to check everything once, and usually get consistent and correct results every time.

What’s even cooler is that we use a program which provides a flashy GUI interface so clients can use dials and switches to input their specific construction, and instantly receive a “Yes, approved for use” or “Not OK! Modify design!” message. The software extracts all data from a base calculation file, and we have a patent pending for use of the technology in engineering. Check out an example here: Pressure calculator. I’ve worked on a few of my own as well.

My boss had me read the book “What would Google Do?” about how Google turned the standard “get capital, get a storefront, market to the masses, sell your standard product” into a very fantastic and revolutionary idea of “do one thing best and link to the rest, market to the niches, give the people control and they will use it, make money by giving away almost everything for free to shut out your competitor, then charge small fees (through advertising) to millions of webpages”. CHA-CHING. I’m over halfway done with the book, but already I see the real power and future of blogs, merging social communities, upside-down business mindsets like why Google made it so big and Yahoo didn’t. I’d like to introduce the concept of distributed knowledge, elegant organization, and just how profound this mindset can have on our company. The book is fascinating, talking about how cable companies should have started the Vonage-type long distance service, newspapers should have started their own craigslist, and how NY Times Online took too long to figure out that if you make people pay for access, they’ll go somewhere else. In other words, all of those companies could have made much more money if they would have done what their online competitors did—which is give the people what they want at the best possible price, or for free if you can.

How does that apply to me? Well, I’m trying to take the reins and learn the SQL and Cold Fusion programming behind our website. The plan is to create a huge platform to revolutionize engineering by providing a one-size-fits-all web service which gives away these free calculators (paid by ads), makes a way to simplify the construction industry, social networking, news, blogs, forums, Wikipedia, the whole thing. Last week my boss taught me how to provide an online search of our database and SQL tables and views and return results with tabs and a nice layout. We’ve already got the Wikipedia, blogs, forums, and news; but we haven’t cracked the code on how to give so much away for free and still ensure revenue.

Anyway, I went off on a long tangent here, but I want to get a feel for these ideas. Does anyone see these changes coming as well? Like a huge shift in the way commerce and services are provided thanks to Web 2.0? To me, all these ideas are all computerizable and can for the most part be handled by formulas and rules. Who better than Engineering Express to invent them? What better time than now to put the ideas into action?

Blogging is Huge

2009-03-24T20:19:00.000-07:00

I'm amazed at the speed of the world nowadays. Just two months ago we got a new president. Just two weeks ago I started reading "What Would Google Do?" a book my boss bought for me, and my mind hasn't stopped since. Just two days ago I found and joined some of my own blogging sites. I never realized the 'blogosphere' was so huge and so intrinsically valuable. Every day that goes by I find more and more information thanks to blogging websites and the communication and links they encourage. The most appealing thing to me is the ability to get a pulse on so many topics in real-time.

I guess right now the biggest thing on my mind is work. I've been working with a few brilliant people to put together a new kind of innovation in structural engineering. Everybody knows that huge industries could be rocked with some simple technological fixes that it seems nobody figured out yet. We're working on creating a Google model for our own company, to provide free problem-solving platforms for the public with the view the public will depend on our services and come back for more. The only problem I have right now is that I want to pursue so many different avenues along with my existing assignments that need to be addressed, I'm falling way behind trying to catch up (if that makes any sense). In any case, the world is an exciting place right now, at least mine is; technology is starting to make things unbelievably different.

On the other hand, one drawback of blogging is how easy it can be to slip into a 4-hour long web surfing/commenting/blogging session and miss out on some real human interaction, or exercise. Maybe I'll do that now.