Is There A Secret To The 9/11 Insurance Battle?

[eg420ne]

Better yet, maybe everything is what it seems to be and GwBush is here to save america..from radical democrats, the evil UN, and cavemen with boxcutters....i still would rather fight them here then over there..we need a good fight here to release all this tension

[VisionaryUrbanTactic]

Ok then, you tell me what document you consider the official report? Give me a name and I will read it.

here is some serious reading material for those interesting in understanding why this could not of happened the way it did.

The Behaviour of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires.


this one is about the cardington fire tests, and why the fireproffing on the wtc did not matter one bit.

and this bottom link is a government guy getting cut up on his 9-11 story

The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective.


how many of you knew about the fire fighters oral history of 9-11?

it was left out of the commision report

Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department - The New York Times

over 500 fire fighters/em's and first responders, most saying they heard 2nd(and 3rd) explosions.

everyone wants to take eyewitness reports, except for these that is.

[Zimzum]

The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective.

Since you say you have facts would you mind telling me who wrote this up? And what is there education and experience? Its a debunking of NOVA and an engineer (Dr. Thomas Eagar).. yet they leave out who wrote that story.. was it debunked by Dr. Blockhead of Icecream University?



Give me time and Ill read up on more.

[Zimzum]

The Behaviour of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires.


this one is about the cardington fire tests, and why the fireproffing on the wtc did not matter one bit.

My question on this is, how is a doctor of philosophy an expert on "Behavior of Multi-story Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires"? What qualifies a philosopher to make such statements in a forensics field in which she has no education in?

[VisionaryUrbanTactic]

My question on this is, how is a doctor of philosophy an expert on "Behavior of Multi-story Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires"? What qualifies a philosopher to make such statements in a forensics field in which she has no education in?

under the supervision of Dr A.S. Usmani, Prof. D.D. Drysdale, Dr B. Lane and Prof. J.M. Rotter.

Where other sources are quoted full references are given.

[VisionaryUrbanTactic]

Dr A.S. Usmani

Dr ASIF USMANI

Reader in Structural Engineering

Alexander Graham Bell Bldg., Room 3.08

Telephone: +44 (0) 131 650 7161

Fax: +44 (0) 131 650 6781

email



Place of Birth:



Academic Qualifications: PhD, University of Wales, Swansea

MSc, Stanford University, California

BE, NED University of Eng & Tech, Karachi

Prof. D.D. Drysdale

Prof. D.D. Drysdale,
University of Edinburgh,
Fire Safety Engineering Group,
Institute for Infrastructure and Environment,
Crew Building,
The King's Buildings,
Edinburgh, Scotland, EH9 3JL,
UK,
E-mail: [email protected]

as for old jm rotter, you will find he is one of the worlds leading guys on this type of research, just google his name, or here is a link or two from his work

1 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON THE BUCKLING OF THIN STEEL CYLINDRICAL SHELLS UNDER ELEVATED LOCAL AXIAL COMPRESSION STRESSES ABSTRACT

here is the google link

Prof. J.M. Rotter - Google Search

now since she was under the direct supervision of these people here, and add onto the fact that NO ONE in this field has said this research is flawed.

i'm happy with the results.

now take in mind the date of these tests, as the tests were not done to show anything about 9/11 or what happened that day, so lets not try and muddy the waters on that point.

[VisionaryUrbanTactic]

Since you say you have facts would you mind telling me who wrote this up? And what is there education and experience? Its a debunking of NOVA and an engineer (Dr. Thomas Eagar).. yet they leave out who wrote that story.. was it debunked by Dr. Blockhead of Icecream University?



Give me time and Ill read up on more.

i think it was john bonham that wrote it.

point is, you can tell that the guy is right, and the government guy is strecthing the truth a bit much, dont you think?

will knowing who wrote the rebuttal make it suck any less for your side?

not really.

any person with common sense can read that nova story, and see homie is telling tall tales.

lets stop beating around the bush, is the guy telling the truth?

[Zimzum]

i think it was john bonham that wrote it.

point is, you can tell that the guy is right, and the government guy is strecthing the truth a bit much, dont you think?

will knowing who wrote the rebuttal make it suck any less for your side?

not really.

any person with common sense can read that nova story, and see homie is telling tall tales.

lets stop beating around the bush, is the guy telling the truth?

Well for starters I hold no Ph.D, So I do not call myself an expert in any field. However I will believe a story more if the author has the credentials to back up his area of experience. Kinda like a lawyer telling me how to preform spinal surgery. To someone with no proper training on the subject you can't go on the fact of "Hey it shouldn't look like that", who made you an expert to make such a claim going only on what you think it should have looked like?

Once people where told thunder came from god/gods being pissed off, just for the fact people couldn't comprehend science or had little to no knowledge of it. Now we know the science behind thunder and even teach it to elementary school kids. So today when you hear thunder you know why it happens and are not down on your knees praying for forgiveness to whatever your god maybe every time it happens.

Now a building is downed in ways they never where before and people are screaming more or less "god was pissed off" without knowing any of the science behind it. After 9/11 it seems quite allot of people are now considering themselves "experts" in how a building should react when they themselves just don't have the slightest training in the field.