A GP has a wide arcing knowledge base they use to diagnose you with, so why is a professional engineer any different?
9/11 crap again, what do you think?
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
- Status
A GP has a wide arcing knowledge base they use to diagnose you with, so why is a professional engineer any different?
I just remember a demolitions expert on each of these discovery channel type shows claiming the importance of explosives being placed correctly so that the buildings collapse without tipping over to one side. Just seems to make sense to me.
I'm not into conspiracy stuff and I don't believe it could all go be a government plan. But in my uneducated head, I think if all the impact is on one side, that there would be a bias in how something reacts.
A doctors job is to diagnosis you. Most structural engineers do not have a clue about the structure old WTC, let alone actually done the maths on it. They are pulling experience from other construction methods.
It is exactly the same as a lot of the moon CT, you have people ulling from irrelevant experience. Just like no stars, yet some photogphars think you should see stars, as on earth you have a black sky with no clouds you can photograph stars. But they'd use applied their experience with out calculating. The revolts is very reflective, in direct sunlight, that means the exposure times are very short and as such are not picked up on the film.
Exactly the same appies to 9/11, people pulling on what they see as fact from their experiences, but the truth is none of these people actually have the needed experience and they fail to do the calculations.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's worth noting how much BS that is, we firstly don't know what government secrets have been kept and for how long. In most situations most things aren't classified or subject to jail for treason for being leaked. it's also incredibly important to note that most info that is "leaked" usually hurts one politician(or party) and helps the other, so there is a reason to leak said information.
In the case of a potential massive conspiracy it would both be dangerous to leak such information and wouldn't help anyone, it would damage the government so massively no party would benefit from it. There would be few if any people willing to leak such information.
I'm not talking about 9/11 at all, but this utter fallacy that governments can't keep secrets based purely on the idea that some information gets out. Many many secrets such as lots of info about what went on during the wars was only declassified and released 50+ years later which went happily by as a secret until it was released. Governments keep many secrets.
If all the jet fuel exploded on the side the jet hits, I would think that steel girders would melt on that side and the structure above would bend toward that point. I wouldn't expect the opposite end of the building to collapse almost identically.
I'm just talking what I imagine in my head. I enjoy this kinda crap. I certainly have no expertise to back any of my silly ideas up
Right, and this is exactly the same as a GP, he doesnt know the ins and outs of my genital warts infection, but he knows it looks like it. And his professional opinion is enough for us to believe him.
You can't say its ok for a GP to do exactly the same as a engineer is doing, unless you will happily admit to being a hypocrite.
No he just backs NIST even though they got it wrong 3 times in 3 reports, he just changes his tune to fit the dance
If all the jet fuel exploded on the side the jet hits, I would think that steel girders would melt on that side and the structure above would bend toward that point. I wouldn't expect the opposite end of the building to collapse almost identically.
I'm just talking what I imagine in my head. I enjoy this kinda crap. I certainly have no expertise to back any of my silly ideas up
This shows your lack of basic understanding, no steel girders would have melted in the fir. The fuel also burnt of within seconds. It is the sustained fires fuelled by the building, that heated the steel structure, you then have two issues, steel at high temperature loses strength, steel expands with heat, if it expands enough, it sheers the attaching bolts off. The fire did not get hot enough to melt steel.
It was also not a uniform collapse. You can clearly see the floors bowing due to the heat in many photos, you see the roof complex collapse before the rest of the building, you even see the top section of one of the WTC fall sideways.
Then CTs ask how if the fire didn't melt steel how was there melted steel in the rubble. I'll let someone else calculate the energy released from the tower falling and compacting into the ground.
No it's nothing like the same, for a start the structural engineers want now what it looks like. The GP also does tests. How many of these have done the maths, got the evidence from photos, films etc. so no it is in no way the same as shows laid of logic, which is why you keep posting crap videos.
Would it be possible that you would build something into a sky scraper that would ensure that if it was to collapse due to serious strain (earthquake?), it would do so with minimal collateral damage?
In Japan I understand they build everything to cope with earthquakes, but above their tolerance are they designed to fall correctly?
In Japan I understand they build everything to cope with earthquakes, but above their tolerance are they designed to fall correctly?
No he just backs NIST even though they got it wrong 3 times in 3 reports, he just changes his tune to fit the dance
Lol, they didn't get it wrong, theories evolve, as more evidence is found, more simulations are run etc. exactly the smae happens in plane crashes, iis every plane crash a VT and do you ignore the Final report.
Do you really want me to go dig that thread out, and post for everyone to see how you knowingly lied multiple times to try and support you CTs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,176
- Location
- London
What makes you an expert and how do you feel qualified to say that you know better than a large group of structural engineers?
Its exactly the same, your just being pedantic and arguing for the sake of it.
Show me one thing you have done yourself to prove these so called nutters are wrong?
You have always been a gov guy and always will be. If NIST came out with "we got it wrong AGAIN) you would agree with them.
Yes they did get it wrong, they was on US tv saying they got it wrong and would revise the report 3 TIMES.
I'm not an expert, never claimed to be an expert.
However I am capable of looking at both sides, I've also read all the official reports, as well as the CT sites. And when it comes down to it. The CT just don't hold anywater. Like any good CT on the surface they look appealing as they use logic everyone is familiar with. But that doesn't mean that logic is correct. Just like you need controlled demolition to make a building fall like that, or the moon with no atmosphere and a dark sky, stars should easily be seen on photos.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,782
- Location
- Auckland
I would.
- Status