ETH Zürich project: Failure consequences and reliability acceptance criteria for exceptional building structures

i came across this recently:

This is an ongoing project at the tech university ETH in Zürich, Switzerland.
Thats the uni where Bachman and Schneider have been teaching . ( )
(Those two are not involved in this project though)

Short Summary:
The project analyses the consequences associated to the World Trade Centre collapse. The assessment of socio-economic consequences considers consequences due to fatalities next to businesses and material losses. Based on these findings optimal safety levels will be derived for such structures.

I emailed them a few weeks ago, asking if they have been considering the controlled demolition theory too, specially in the case of WTC7,
as this would obviously make quite a bit of a difference concerning "failure consequences / reliability.." of building structures.
I received no reply so far :(

I think we should keep an eye on this project. I'll email them again , maybe someone else wants to bother them too about this.
It would certainly be interesting to get an answer on this....
They all speak english, i'm sure... The emails are all on the mainpage of the project (link above).

Absurdity belongs in lit/theater/art -- not science

This project is reminiscent of the "Rebuilding at Ground Zero" NOVA special (or whatever it was called) in which much was made of the new, much wider stairwells in the rebuilt 7. Any effort to "redesign" buildings for safety in light of the 9/11 events, without attempting an accurate analysis of the events (ie, the buildings blew up) is absurd.

"Despite the atypical and meaningless cause of the tragic failure we might be able to learn something from the event whereby the design basis of similar future structures could be enhanced."

Yeah, could you make 'em impervious to explosives?


Yea, its so absurd, it really makes me wonder.
I mean, these are intelligent people without any direct US-government ties, they have been looking into the 'collapse' since 04.2002, its obvious they must have smelled something fishy along the way.
Then theres also those other 2 profs of the same institute saying WTC7 = demolition, most probably. ##


I just realised Mario Fontana, who is the project leader on this, is quoted in Daniele Gansers text, too, along Bachman and Schneider. Here's the bit:

"“We simply don't know what exactly happened in WTC 7,” said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana."
(the full text is on )

"at least thinkable"... erh. Aha. I wonder what else he thinks is 'thinkable'.