Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11

[TheGreatBarryB]

It does for freefall to happen.

No it doesn’t it just needs to first soften the steel and compromise a small number of floors then the added weight of those floors causes a weight that floors below cannot and we’re not designed to cope with. Thomas Eagar is a Prof of Metallurgy and Engineering at MIT and I’ve found his readings amongst many to be best understood. Small excerpt..

 

[ant555]

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?

Because I do not subscribe to the theory that Bruno is never wrong and he should have his own Brunopedia page.

 

[ant555]

Someone can have knowledge and or understanding about a subject without being qualified.

So Bruno has built dwellings then ?
No . Bruno has read alternative opinions and decided they fit his narrative which is generally along the lines of some sort of conspiracy.
Like I said I have no opinion either was but I do not have to buy either side.
I have spent the last 10 years delivering to buildings sites of all sizes. I can give you an idea of how they are built and engineered as well.
Your guy obviously built a good building. Maybe because he over engineered it for whatever reason. I don’t know but if he nothing to do with believing certain theories about 9/11 .
I know from observation that standards are not al at the same in the constitution. Materials are not alway the same spec and what has been thought to be well engineered has failed at times.

 

[ant555]

It does for freefall to happen.

Bolts . Welds . Not the best workmanship in the build. Inferior product at some stage. Faulty product. Building not actually designed for side impact at a certain height along with a large explosion and high temp fire. Inferior concrete.
Any thing could contribute . No one can produce definitive facts either was.
Are you really saying that facts can be produced that show the building was rigged to implode once the plane struck it ?

 

[BrunoV]

This idea that experts are unimpeachable...it's scary because so many of you really seem to believe it.

For a start, in a scenario such as this there are no definite conclusions about how anything occurred. There are hypotheses which are supposed to be tested, weighed up against each other, so that there can then be a concluded theory about how the event is said to have occurred. Even a concluded theory is not an established fact and can change. That's the scientific method. It's why you don't 'trust the science' represented as a conclusion. It's a very easy thing to work out whether to trust the science. Just look at how open the scientists are to reasonable conclusions.

The conclusions about how the towers and building 7 fell down are as bad as the magic bullet theory. But I guess I am not a ballistics expert so I should have no opinion on whether a bullet can zig zag all over the place and between bodies.

I'm used to litigation where the parties prepare their respective cases, including based on expert evidence and then a judge or jury makes a decision having heard the opposing parties put (what should be) the strongest opposing points of view. Nothing like that occurred here.

Experts, be they medical, engineering, accounting, etc, will often agree about some things and there will often be minor areas of disagreement. Sometimes the experts will arrive at what are essentially opposite conclusions on everything. Often there is an expert taken apart during a trial by a non-expert who is just applying logic to undermine conclusions which are not supported by the evidence.

The judge may not be an expert but I'd back her or him to arrive at the right conclusion before any of these bullshit, political contrived enquiries run by experts. The process of litigation at least requires the other side to put its case.

 

[BrunoV]

So Bruno has built dwellings then ?
No . Bruno has read alternative opinions and decided they fit his narrative which is generally along the lines of some sort of conspiracy.
Like I said I have no opinion either was but I do not have to buy either side.
I have spent the last 10 years delivering to buildings sites of all sizes. I can give you an idea of how they are built and engineered as well.
Your guy obviously built a good building. Maybe because he over engineered it for whatever reason. I don’t know but if he nothing to do with believing certain theories about 9/11 .
I know from observation that standards are not al at the same in the constitution. Materials are not alway the same spec and what has been thought to be well engineered has failed at times.

Why are you here spending all of this time on a subject you know nothing about defending conclusions you do not understand in response to points you do not understand?

 

[ant555]

Why are you here spending all of this time on a subject you know nothing about defending conclusions you do not understand in response to points you do not understand?

Why do you get to question why I do anything ? If I want to spend a couple of hours on a Saturday talking gibberish on a forum I will. Even better if it gets you going. I may not have an opinion either way as far as the Twin Towers go but my job is delivering reo sheets / prefab concrete panels / reo lentils / steel beams / reo columns etc to building sites from factories to 60 plus story buildings. Have spoken to plenty of people with plenty of theories about how they are built and how they fail. People out there on the job sites building them. Have seen them in every stage from when they where just a big hole in the ground with pilons being drilled right through to heavy construction finished.
And I have read that there are discrepancies between the two main reports and some articles where some well qualified people have questioned the fire melting the steel theory. Unlike you I just have no opinion either way.

 

[Snake Charmer]