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. There are still so many things that could have happened .

 

[Snake Charmer]

 

[BomberManU]

I find it funny/sad that people willingly believe a convoluted plan, that would involve 100's or 1000's of people, rather than the simple fact that planes were hijacked and flown into the towers.
The post above details 'why' they collapsed, but all conspiracy nutters are all of a sudden engineering experts.
Visiting the site is a humbling experience, do it if you ever have the chance.

 

[Old Campaigner]

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

There's a certain irony to this because you've clearly decided that the views of certain 'experts' are just that

 

[BrunoV]

There's a certain irony to this because you've clearly decided that the views of certain 'experts' are just that

No, this is a projection.

I do not blindly follow anyone.

What I've done is point out an objective fact, being the speed of the collapse, and explained that there is no government approved hypothesis for the collapse that explains that fact. As such, none of the approved explanations can be correct.

It's part of the balancing act that you engage in when you think about something.

I'm going to put more weight on the expert interpretation that doesn't dismiss and isn't completely inconsistent with the objective fact I can see.

 

[ant555]

Got to love those objective facts.

 

[bomberlegend2007]

The WTC is not the only building to collapse from fire. There was a building in Brazil six or so years ago that was built in the same era as the WTC, that fell exactly the same way as the WTC did.

Massive high-rise fire causes building to collapse in Brazil, at least 1 dead

A massive fire engulfed two high-rise structures in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

abcnews.go.com

WTC7 was burning from around 11am that day, until about 5pm or so when it collapsed. It had two 110 stories towers fell on top of it and was burning from the base up. It wasn’t pulled down as some believe.

Movies like Loose Change have muddied the waters around 9/11 through selective editing, quoting out of context and the old narrative of “don’t trust the media” followed up by “it was reported on CNN that calls can’t be made that high from flights.”

The US government couldn’t pull this off. The amount of people involved is astoundingly high. The terrorists took so many steps where if it was the US government, they didn’t need to take as many.

9/11 happened because of terrible communication from the CIA and the FBI, the US dropping the ball as it was a time of somewhat peace worldwide and the terrorists planning and executing an attack during a time which the US pants were down.

 

[ant555]

The WTC is not the only building to collapse from fire. There was a building in Brazil six or so years ago that was built in the same era as the WTC, that fell exactly the same way as the WTC did.

Massive high-rise fire causes building to collapse in Brazil, at least 1 dead

A massive fire engulfed two high-rise structures in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

abcnews.go.com

WTC7 was burning from around 11am that day, until about 5pm or so when it collapsed. It had two 110 stories towers fell on top of it and was burning from the base up. It wasn’t pulled down as some believe.

Movies like Loose Change have muddied the waters around 9/11 through selective editing, quoting out of context and the old narrative of “don’t trust the media” followed up by “it was reported on CNN that calls can’t be made that high from flights.”

The US government couldn’t pull this off. The amount of people involved is astoundingly high. The terrorists took so many steps where if it was the US government, they didn’t need to take as many.

9/11 happened because of terrible communication from the CIA and the FBI, the US dropping the ball as it was a time of somewhat peace worldwide and the terrorists planning and executing an attack during a time which the US pants were down.

I agree that too many people would have to be involved if the Government was responsible. Someone would have blown the whistle by now.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Surely if it was a controlled demolition there would be huge numbers of structural members found in the rubble with holes blown in them by the shaped charges

 

[Lore]

I’m struggling to imagine a logic where a controlled demolition is perfectly timed to the hijacking of a plane and flying it into a building full of people… let alone doing it twice at two separate buildings and knowing exactly which floor would be hit at what angle to rig the whole thing without anyone noticing it at the time or commenting on it since.

Literally the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, and there’s a lot of dumb things flying around these days.

If jet fuel can’t melt iron then a conspiracy of that scale is 1000-fold less likely.

 

[BrunoV]

I'm asking how it is that all structural support for the 3 WTC buildings instantaneously ceased to provide any support / resist the effects of gravity.

It's a really specific question. It doesn't need consideration of the difficulty involved in carrying out large scale conspiracies or discounting of witness events or reference to any documentaries you may or may not approve of.

Apparently there is a straightforward/conclusive/obvious scientific explanation for this absolute and instantaneous failure of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fire proofed structural steel in 3 different buildings. What is that explanation?

 

[Lore]

I'm asking how it is that all structural support for the 3 WTC buildings instantaneously ceased to provide any support / resist the effects of gravity.

It's a really specific question. It doesn't need consideration of the difficulty involved in carrying out large scale conspiracies or discounting of witness events or reference to any documentaries you may or may not approve of.

Apparently there is a straightforward/conclusive/obvious scientific explanation for this absolute and instantaneous failure of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fire proofed structural steel in 3 different buildings. What is that explanation?

Yeah, it's called a plane crashed into it

 

[BrunoV]

Yeah, it's called a plane crashed into it

Thanks for clearing that up.

So let's get this straight, the plane hits the building and the structural support just evaporates after a certain point? Well we know that the structural support didn't evaporate, that's just silly, it didn't vanish until Rudi Giuliani had it shipped to China, where it was salvaged...but I digress.

 

[BrunoV]

Should also reiterate that no plane struck WTC-7.

 

[Lore]

Thanks for clearing that up.

When you play Jenga, sometimes someone manages to pull the last piece from one layer out quickly enough that it doesn't fall over sideways.

What happens next?

 

[BrunoV]

When you play Jenga, sometimes someone manages to pull the last piece from one layer out quickly enough that it doesn't fall over sideways.

What happens next?

Fed.

 

[bomberlegend2007]

Should also reiterate that no plane struck WTC-7.

No, two skyscrapers did.

 

[BrunoV]

No, two skyscrapers did.

They did?

 

[DonsRule]

I tend to think its pretty strait forward really.

But I think its misleading too saying they all gave way too at the same time/instantaneously.

Likely I would say parts of it failed well before the final collapse.

Thanks for clearing that up.

So let's get this straight, the plane hits the building and the structural support just evaporates after a certain point? Well we know that the structural support didn't evaporate, that's just silly, it didn't vanish until Rudi Giuliani had it shipped to China, where it was salvaged...but I digress.

I would say over the space of 2 hours of burniing weakened the steel. Most likely piece by piece structural elements failed until you reach a critical point. Melt steel no, soften yes..



Photo here the columns bucking in. Weight of floors above softening steel

Floor collapses, - along with all the floors above drop to the floor below woudl stress the support below.. Time stamp on the photo is around 30 min before the collapse.