Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11

Remove this Banner Ad

BrunoV said:
Tactical error, my friend.

The path to conspiracy acceptance starts with the objective. It's too easy to dismiss subjective accounts.

Let the speed of the collapse speak for itself.
Click to expand...
It's a useful adjunct for those saying there were no whistleblowers and Jennings because of his status has credibility as a witness.
 
Nicholas61 said:
Frank Lloyd Wright (architect) was not an engineer but engineered one of the only buildings in a notorious Japanese earthquake zone that survived when one hit and all other buildings went down.
Click to expand...
he studied civil engineering
 
BrunoV said:
Go and find the official explanation for how the fuel created a fire hot enough to undermine the structural integrity of the beams, not so that the integrity was slightly undermined but so that these same columns provided no resistance, allowing the buildings to fall at something close to free fall speed, and then come back to me with your understanding of engineering.

Then go and read the explanation for how building 7 collapsed at free fall speed...and come back to me with your understanding of engineering.
Click to expand...
The physical properties of steel start to change at 500-600C (watch someone sharpening tools on a grinder - they'll dip the piece in water frequently to stop it from getting too hot for this reason) which is a temperature level that is very easy to obtain in a fire. Combined with physical damage to the structure caused by the impact it's not surprising the whole lot cam down.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BrunoV said:
No. But I don't need to be an engineer to read, analyze and compare competing engineering opinions and to decide which one I think is bullshit. Just like I don't need to have been a coach or an AFL insider to have recognized very early on that Brad Scott had no clear plan for Essendon.

Expertise is a valuable thing. But whenever expertise is being applied to explain away common sense we should be skeptical, not just assume that experts know what they are talking about, that they are correct or that their opinions are not corrupted/biased in some way.

If anyone has an honest look at any of the 9/11 engineering stuff they will be confronted with the undeniable reality that all 3 buildings fell at a speed which was virtually freefall (i.e. the speed at which gravity pulls something to the ground) and that everything else is noise. The speed of the fall must be explained.

Do you need to be an engineer to recognize that for a building to fall at freefall it has no structural support? Where did that structural support go? Was it the minute quantity of jet fuel (relative to the size of the structure) that melted the beams on the 90th floor that created the pancake effect (i.e. that one stack falls and crushes the other)? The fuel doesn't burn hot enough, but even if it did, where is the visual evidence of pancaking? How is that consistent with freefall? Did the amount of fuel down the elevator shaft and weaken the beams in a fire? It didn't, and it couldn't, but even if it did you still have the freefall problem.

Let the trusted experts explain to you where the 200,000 tones of structural, fire proofed steel vanished because of a fire in the top 3rd of the building.

Believe your eyes. And believe the experts when what they say is consistent with what your eyes show you.
Click to expand...
Engineered for vertical load, not for sideways impact / shearing force from hundreds of tonnes arriving at 1000kph
 
Old Campaigner said:
The physical properties of steel start to change at 500-600C (watch someone sharpening tools on a grinder - they'll dip the piece in water frequently to stop it from getting too hot for this reason) which is a temperature level that is very easy to obtain in a fire. Combined with physical damage to the structure caused by the impact it's not surprising the whole lot cam down.
Click to expand...
I dunno man, these guys sound like they have read every page of that 10,000+ page "official" report and ran the models themselves. I doubt they're just falling prey to taglines like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" on youtube videos.
 
DERO said:
They are dumb and it was no doubt in poor taste but jet fuel melts steel beams
Click to expand...
Steel melts at approx 1370c but at just half that temp (well below burning temp of jet fuel) steel will lose half its strength enough to thereby compromise structural integrity of a large skyscraper. Hence why they have now changed build regs over there
 
Old Campaigner said:
The physical properties of steel start to change at 500-600C (watch someone sharpening tools on a grinder - they'll dip the piece in water frequently to stop it from getting too hot for this reason) which is a temperature level that is very easy to obtain in a fire. Combined with physical damage to the structure caused by the impact it's not surprising the whole lot cam down.
Click to expand...


Asides from the fact that sky scrapers have burned for many hours but not collapsed.

In any event, you do not address the free fall problem and you can't because no one can.
 
fairbump_playon said:
Engineered for vertical load, not for sideways impact / shearing force from hundreds of tonnes arriving at 1000kph
Click to expand...


What's that got to do with jet fuel undermining the structural intgrity of the inner columns?

In any event, it was designed to withstand twice the force create by plane impact, according to the guy who designed it.
 
BrunoV said:
No. But I don't need to be an engineer to read, analyze and compare competing engineering opinions and to decide which one I think is bullshit. Just like I don't need to have been a coach or an AFL insider to have recognized very early on that Brad Scott had no clear plan for Essendon.

Expertise is a valuable thing. But whenever expertise is being applied to explain away common sense we should be skeptical, not just assume that experts know what they are talking about, that they are correct or that their opinions are not corrupted/biased in some way.

If anyone has an honest look at any of the 9/11 engineering stuff they will be confronted with the undeniable reality that all 3 buildings fell at a speed which was virtually freefall (i.e. the speed at which gravity pulls something to the ground) and that everything else is noise. The speed of the fall must be explained.

Do you need to be an engineer to recognize that for a building to fall at freefall it has no structural support? Where did that structural support go? Was it the minute quantity of jet fuel (relative to the size of the structure) that melted the beams on the 90th floor that created the pancake effect (i.e. that one stack falls and crushes the other)? The fuel doesn't burn hot enough, but even if it did, where is the visual evidence of pancaking? How is that consistent with freefall? Did that tiny amount of fuel leak down the elevator shaft and weaken the beams in a fire? It didn't, and it couldn't, but even if it did you still have the freefall problem. We are not dealing with weakened columns. We are dealing with columns that may as well have vanished.

Believe your eyes. And believe the experts when what they say is consistent with what your eyes show you.
Click to expand...
So basically read everything until you find one that suits.
Let me I said. Have no opinion either way and to be honest even if I did it would be a waste of my time.
What I find with large conspiracy theories is the fact that human nature is not factored in. Something this size would take too much human involvement to pull off and at some stage someone would have spilled the beans.
Anyway good luck with these types of things consuming your life.
 
Nicholas61 said:
Frank Lloyd Wright (architect) was not an engineer but engineered one of the only buildings in a notorious Japanese earthquake zone that survived when one hit and all other buildings went down.
Click to expand...
And I care about this because?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Nicholas61 said:
Your usual passive aggression when someone questions you in some way
Click to expand...
Well what has it got do do with the World Trade Center and Bruno being an engineer ? Nothing.
 
it is one of the most infuriating things when people voluntarily go onto the internet and ask people who are discussing something if they're 'an expert' or some such. the entire reason forums like this exist is for us non-expert dropkicks with inconsequential lives to talk about stuff and give opinions. they're like the guy at the pub who immediately googles the answer to 'what was that film with ahh that hot chick in it' stifling any natural evolution of the conversation.

its not a royal commission here. it's just a discussion.
 
BrunoV said:
What's that got to do with jet fuel undermining the structural intgrity of the inner columns?

In any event, it was designed to withstand twice the force create by plane impact, according to the guy who designed it.
Click to expand...
Did he say that, did he? Well I guess that’s definitive proof. I’m sure his modeling of potential plane impacts was exceptionally carefully executed.

The guy who designed my deck said it was engineered so that the stumps wouldn’t sink, even in exceptionally wet conditions.

Unfortunately terrorists can hijack the weather these days and a corner of the deck is sagging.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Steel melts at approx 1370c but at just half that temp (well below burning temp of jet fuel) steel will lose half its strength enough to thereby compromise structural integrity of a large skyscraper. Hence why they have now changed build regs over there
Click to expand...
look, I appreciate the serious response but I was taking the piss.
 
ant555 said:
So basically read everything until you find one that suits.
Let me I said. Have no opinion either way and to be honest even if I did it would be a waste of my time.
What I find with large conspiracy theories is the fact that human nature is not factored in. Something this size would take too much human involvement to pull off and at some stage someone would have spilled the beans.
Anyway good luck with these types of things consuming your life.
Click to expand...


Why do you get involved only to ignore what is actually being discussed?

Start with the square 1, how could and why did those buildings freefall?
 
Aren’t there documentaries you could watch?

The theme was controversial couples. I think you’ve established that it’s controversial…

Not sure controversial is really what the AFL is aiming for, hence the problem
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11

Similar threads

Sporno 4 Pyros
Sport The Essendon Board’s Paris 2024 Olympics Thread
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sporno 4 Pyros
LordLucifer
Meet Up "BIG VINYL DIG" - Essendon 2024
Replies
3
Views
563
LordLucifer
LordLucifer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top