 |
|
MasterCard was originally called MasterCharge. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
9/11 demolition theory challenged
Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 (CDT) by Thoth
 An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York. After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001.
This mode of
structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down
rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one
beneath (an effect called "pancaking").
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to
test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain
what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are
published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have
tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there
was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and
that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged
parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why
the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these
falling parts.
"The initiation part has
been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the
progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to
calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is,
simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or
comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest
the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and
that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine
seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
'Fair assumption'
The University of Cambridge
engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was
"a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".
"One thing that confounded
engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through
undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly,"
said Dr Seffen.
He added that his
calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that
no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the
building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.
The controlled detonation
idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of
collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off
inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a
demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity
between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert
that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos
and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and
debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this
could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on
lower floors during the collapse.
Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.
Copyright: BBC News
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by Curlybird on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | | And I suppose his research also explains why the steel support girders of the central shaft have such nice neat angle cuts on them, as well.
Sorry, Doc. I do not buy what you are selling. It has a foul smell of coverup to it.
Curlybird |
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged (Score: 1)
by on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | Exactly!
Or what about, molten steel... burning hotter then jet fuel...what about the trace amounts of thermite and thermate found in the rubble, the main ingredient in demolitions... what about the explosions heard and felt in the basement before the planes hit..what about building 7...what about the fact that the architects for the wtc said they were built to withstand being hit by a plane...????
The is the worst article I've ever read, the fact the BBC put it out should say something, WTF do they know about it? One guy saying mathmatically its possible blah blah blah doesn't offer any explanation or proof of any kind!! Its all BS. Put a Dr in front of his name and people will believe anything...sad sad sad. This reeks of dis info so bad I'm gonna hurl. |
]
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged (Score: 1)
by on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Right ON guys. Isn't it funny how it took seven f**cking years for a "Cambridge" prof to all of a sudden debunk the obvious demolition of these buildings? "They" are counting on time to go by so those of use who witnessed it on TV or god bless in person, our memories will get foggy, and front line media records will vanish - I'll never forget watching the second tower fall - live on TV - and later in the day the 7th tower - I knew then something just wasn't right. |
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by Rareheart on Thursday, September 13, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | if the "squib" explosions we see in videos happening below the collapsing tower are actually from debris falling inside the building...then that debris is violating the laws of gravity by falling way faster than the other debris.
just an observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by EyerishEyesQQ on Friday, September 14, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.myspace.com/irisheyesqq | | cclady, Funny you should say that people in-the-know are counting on us to forget what happened. Just a few days ago I was listening to a local radio station. They played tapes of a newsman interviewing San Diego University students. The interviewer asked them what year the 9-11 tragedy occured. One student said it was 1997, another said it was 2003 and about 4-5 more didn't know either, taking guesses. These kids are in COLLEGE!!!! QQ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by EyerishEyesQQ on Friday, September 14, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.myspace.com/irisheyesqq | | Although I'm not an Engineer, I find it hard to believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed neatly into themselves. If this is what buildings naturally do, why do we need demolition experts? Common sense tells me that it's just too coincidental. QQ |
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged (Score: 1)
by on Friday, September 14, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hi everyone,
I don't know if you've been to Ground Zero ( I haven't) but I was talking to a friend of mine tonight who was there after the fact. She told me that she couldn't believe that that small area contained the two World Trade Center towers. Without saying anything, I thought to myself that her statement coincided with possible evidence of a controlled demolition. Joyce did say that the buildings all around that particular area looked like they had been damaged from something.
Also, not to mention the BBC reporting live on television 24 minutes beforehand, in the background of the WTC building 7 still standing, that it had collapsed. But I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know.
FYI
cc |
]
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged (Score: 1)
by BrotherGee on Sunday, September 30, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | This speaks to the tool of "taping-to-simulate-reality". There are signs that all the major American broadcast and cable networks taped their coverage in advance and then synchronized them to air in real time.
Because our controllers can't anticipate EVERYTHING, mistakes were made. The BBC broadcast, because of the 5-hour time difference, was an example of an unexpected "glitch". |
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by BrotherGee on Saturday, September 15, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message | Journal) | First: Scholarship coming from Cambridge is always suspect. Cambridge and Oxford, like their American counterparts Harvard and Yale are bought and paid for by the Illuminati.
Second: one doesn't have to be a genius to know that 110 stories worth of steel girders does not pulverize into dust, no matter what the manner of collapse.
Third: No one wants to address the question of "what happened to the furnishings?". Where are the thousands of desks, tables, chairs and file cabinets? Where are the elevator cars and the thousands of feet of cabling used to haul them? Where are the thousands of feet of stairway railings? Come on, now. Come on.
Fourth: Even if it had collapsed naturally, the collapsing energy would've been spent halfway down as the debris dispersed. Half the building should've been left standing. IN ORDER TO COLLAPSE LIKE AN ACCORDIAN, FLOORS HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT ONE BY ONE...from the bottom.
We must wake up. Our 3D existence is an illusion. Our controllers know this and use this knowledge to continually manipulate us and mess withour heads. Just like Neo in the Matrix, you can know what they know. You can do what they do....and more.
But first you must UPLUG. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by mickey22 on Saturday, September 15, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | | I could give a maybe if it was one building, but to have three collapse in the same manner to me makes this "theory" not very logical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by ufo1953 on Monday, September 17, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | Pre 9/11 and Post 9/11, NO other Building has EVER collapsed in such a manner. All around the World, there have been Major Fires in various Buildings, which have left Burnt-out Shells behind. Remember Building No: 7 also went down much later and this was not hit by a Plane.
When the Planes hit, there were Fireballs, thus 90% of their Avation Gas (Avgas) was instantly burnt up. I can not see the remaining 10% being enough to melt the Four Verticle Steel Columns. Check how the Radio/Television Antenna drops into the Building before the Floors start falling. If Newtons Law is correct, then the Antenna should have gone down together with the Floors at the same time.
The only times i have seen Buildings going down in that fashion, have been Buildings dropped by Controlled Detonations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 9/11 demolition theory challenged
by lilmikey on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | | I believe that our government is trying to make the population stupid and the way to do this is by adding chemicals to the water. For example it is a know fact that in the Washington D.C. area and in the Maryland area there is lead in the public drinking water so the children have to drink it. And you can ask anyone lead in the water adds up to mental deficientcies. They tested agent orange on the soldiers with no care in Vietnam war. And they also tested agents on the soldiers in Saudi causing the Saudi syndrom. How much more does it take to know the truth. It has been a trick all along but we are to busy with our daily lives to survive to do anything about it. This country to me is the most murdering country in this century alone. The trick is to have some one else do it so there is not trail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
