Ron Brookman, Structural Engineer, Talks WTC7 Shear Studs

michaelsuede

Graduate Poster
michaelsuede
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
1,565
The obviously mentally ill engineer named Ron Brookman rambles on for nearly a half hour about how he was stonewalled by the NIST in searching for information on the WTC7 collapse.

Clearly a disturbed individual, Brookman rips off his clothing halfway through the video and begins making armpit farts.

I don't know why anyone would believe a word he says when his qualifications include dropping out of high school.

 
So let's see how good this is as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Even if Brookman showed that NIST's model is flawed, this wouldn't demonstrate that WTC7's collapse was not due to fire, only that NIST may not have correctly described the details of the mechanism. We're still short by a plausible alternative scenario (explosives would have been heard, thermite would have been seen, thermite has yet to be demonstrated to sever a vertical column, explosives would have left easily detected artefacts and chemical residues, thermite would have left radically different marks on the columns where they fractured, etc, etc), a motive for destroying a building nobody much had heard of (don't try the destruction of evidence garbage, please, because we know that the collapse left bits of paper all over Manhattan), a plausible scenario for how demolition devices could have been installed, and then any kind of plausible evidence that any of this happened (ideally, that is, evidence that doesn't require a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy).

I eagerly await a response along the lines of "I wasn't saying it proved an inside job, it just shows that NIST got it wrong". Because that's probably the reason this was posted on a conspiracy theories forum rather than an engineering forum.

Dave
 
michaelsuede said:
The obviously mentally ill engineer named Ron Brookman ...

Clearly a disturbed individual, ...

I don't know why anyone would believe a word he says when his qualifications include dropping out of high school.

Click to expand...

Uhm. He has got clear and current licenses from the California Board of Professional Engineers as civil and structural engineer, so I would venture a guess that he did get the required degrees of higher learning and is not "obviously mentally".

Here is his AE911"truth" profile: http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=997441
 
I see he thinks WTC7 wasn't "engulfed in any fire", and that the collapses were completely symmetrical, and that the high temperature corrosion of some steel members in the rubble pile were in some way relevant to the cause of collapse. Since he clearly doesn't understand the actual evidence, basic geometry, or even simple causality, one has to suspect that his conclusions arise from the falsity of his premises rather than any failure in his reasoning from one to the other.

Does he know how to read, do we know?

Dave
 
Oystein said:
Uhm. He has got clear and current licenses from the California Board of Professional Engineers as civil and structural engineer, so I would venture a guess that he did get the required degrees of higher learning and is not "obviously mentally".

Here is his AE911"truth" profile: http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=997441
Click to expand...

Let's not bring truth or qualifications into this debate please.

I'm perfectly content ignoring reality and believing everything the MSM and White House tells me.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I see he thinks WTC7 wasn't "engulfed in any fire", and that the collapses were completely symmetrical, and that the high temperature corrosion of some steel members in the rubble pile were in some way relevant to the cause of collapse. Since he clearly doesn't understand the actual evidence, basic geometry, or even simple causality, one has to suspect that his conclusions arise from the falsity of his premises rather than any failure in his reasoning from one to the other.

Does he know how to read, do we know?

Dave
Click to expand...

Also thinks that a single column can't cause the whole building to collapse... I suspect dealing with the specifics on how the building was put together wasn't among the things he went into either... they've been pretty bad at talking details behind their claims...
 
michaelsuede said:
Let's not bring truth or qualifications into this debate please.
Click to expand...

Agreed, let's just move on quickly to poisoning the well and strawman arguments.

michaelsuede said:
I'm perfectly content ignoring reality and believing everything the MSM and White House tells me.
Click to expand...

...oh, I see you're way ahead of me.

Dave
 
Just taking a look at Brookman's truthing-by-numbers exercise. There are some interesting pieces of reasoning in there. For example, he says (pages 6-7) that NIST didn't determine what caused debris from WTC1 to hit WTC7, and that therefore the cause of the initial structural damage to WTC7 has not been established, an extraordinary non sequitur given that we have a photograph showing WTC1 debris striking WTC7.

It's rather too turgid and dull to read through in a single sitting, but it's basically an exercise in nitpicking the fine details of the NIST report, making up details to nitpick where necessary (for example, when NIST doesn't include a detail in an illustration, he tries to imply that they didn't include that detail in their analysis), and concluding, even after a very hostile and one-sided analysis, no more than that NIST's conclusions may not be correct and that another investigation should be carried out.

So I stand by what I said in post #2. This is not even the first step in demonstrating a vague suspicion of an inside job; it doesn't even claim that the NIST model was wrong, only that its validity hasn't been proven to the author's personal satisfaction.

Dave
 
michaelsuede said:
fixed that for you
Click to expand...

I thought you thought everyone would eventually become a supporter of an-cap? If that's the case doesn't it necessitate some people being in the process of becoming a supporter of an-cap?

If that's the case then doesn't it necessitate the existence of some people who will disagree with you without being communists?
 
Wildcat, you have to realize that there is no such thing as cooks in the professional world! If you genuinely think that they are wrong you are automatically a puppet of the government. Didn't you get the memo!?* ;)


*j/k
 
Oystein said:
Uhm. He has got clear and current licenses from the California Board of Professional Engineers as civil and structural engineer, so I would venture a guess that he did get the required degrees of higher learning and is not "obviously mentally".

Here is his AE911"truth" profile: http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=997441
Click to expand...

From his profile:

.....it is obvious that NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission have all fallen short of a detailed accounting of the catastrophic collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings in Manhattan on 9/11/01
Click to expand...

Why would he be including the 9/11 Commission for an explanation of the collapses? Is he not aware that it was not an engineering paper!!??

I don't want to just hand wave past this guy with ad hominems. I'll wait and have a look at this video and his paper. But it seems to me, based on that quote, we are just going to see standard trutherese and he won't be addressing the facts behind NIST's conclusions at all.

We shall see!
 
michaelsuede said:
Let's not bring truth or qualifications into this debate please.

I'm perfectly content ignoring reality and believing everything the MSM and White House tells me.
Click to expand...

Do you believe everything AE911truth tells you? If yes, please explain why that is so. If not, please list at least one claim made on ae911truth.org that you consider to be false! (This is a test to see if you are ready to accept reality. No reply from you will be interpreted as you ignoring reality.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom