User Reviews

The series is fairly compelling in its descriptions and in most cases actual video of the incidents or their aftermath. Some of the incidents are very well known, some though i had not heard of or I only had a cursory knowledge of.

Also I find it interesting to know the causes, mistakes or oversights that may have caused them.

Not sure what i think about the talking head experts that appear across the various incidents and episodes they are well spoken and clear and concise with their explanations but not sure about their actual areas of expertise or knowledge of the actual disasters.

The incident specific experts are probably better qualified to describe the events and causes, but for the most part they are not as polished as the series regular talking heads.

I watched the second season of this series first and I found it more compelling than the first season, the formula is essentially the same but I think the big difference is the engineering mistakes of the first season are less compelling, there is more footage of the actual incidents in the second season. Added to these factors is that there were more similar incidents in the first season and the repetition was less interesting.

The narration and video footage is spectacular to listen to and watch. However, as another reviewer states and I agree - the choice of talking heads is questionable and puts the validity of what they say into doubt. Why are we hearing from a neuroscientist, biochemist, and chemical engineer? Why are we not getting the actual architects and engineers to speak? If not the ones involved in the disasters, then we should at least be hearing from other architects, structural or civil engineers, building envelope engineers, roofing experts, building code specialists, or geotechnical engineer.

Every time a speaker's name and job title is displayed, I end up distracted.