User Profile

I have 25 years public service as a building designer, office building manager, and landscape architect. I also have 17 years in private practice and have designed schools, performing arts theaters, fire stations. city buildings, and custom houses. I have designed major highway landscape restoration and have written guidelines for major architectural treatment of Interstate 90 infrastructure in Washington State. During my education, I took twenty five credit hours of structural engineering. I am a certified HUD/FHA plans examiner, and a certified FEMA post disaster building inspector.

As an architecture student, I was on the 100th floor of the WTC second tower during its construction. I was personally escorted to the top by one of the head engineers for the buildings. I had an opportunity to see the unclad structure as it was being built. There were no curtain or interior walls Given the size and height of these buildings, I find it totally incongruous that three buildings would "pancake" almost symmetrically. I would think that there would be uneven failure, melting of the structure, more to one side than another in at least one of the structures. The planes crashed into one side of the buildings, and unevenly - not on a level keel. That, to me would indicate more damage on one side of the building and more on one floor than another. All three buildings seemed to collapse inward on themselves with out relative little damage to nearby buildings in all directions. Why didn't at least one tower upper section tilt and fall to the side. And building seven was not square. If it collapsed from fire, why pancake instead of falling to one side or end where the fire was located? The fire was not in the exact middle. This is all too perfect - more reminiscent of a controlled demolition for ALL three structures. There are far too many "coincidences" to even discuss here.