R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged  (Read 8509 times)

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« on: September 11, 2007, 05:39:51 am »

Here is the latest on this issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

I am waiting with anticipation to see if Max will let go of his theories. Smile
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor

CCC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2007, 08:13:22 am »

Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 05:39

Here is the latest on this issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

I am waiting with anticipation to see if Max will let go of his theories. Smile


As usual, the best explanation is the simplest.
Logged
 

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2007, 12:59:43 pm »



Condolences to my American brothers on the anniversary of this un-holy day (Sept 11th)





Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2007, 01:10:44 pm »

""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."

That's got a lot of implications for our recent conversation here, in which it was repeatedly implied that nothing confounded engineers. Thank goodness religious belief in Popular Mechanics doesn't stand in the way of real science.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2007, 01:41:05 pm »

mgod wrote on Tue, 11 September 2007 18:10

""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."

That's got a lot of implications for our recent conversation here, in which it was repeatedly implied that nothing confounded engineers. Thank goodness religious belief in Popular Mechanics doesn't stand in the way of real science.

DS


Well I'm not sure which engineers were "confounded", I'd say the "controversy" is being rather overplayed by the BBC, in fact Dr Seffen also says "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural."

Try calculating the kinetic energy of the upper sections once they'd fallen a couple of floors... you'll find that the towers collapsing isn't all that confounding after all.

A 14 floor section falling 3.5m (less than one floor's height) releases more potential energy than half a tonne of TNT, it seems highly unlikely that a previously damaged structure is going to withstand that, so it's going to keep going, it loses some of its momentum, but gravity gives it some more, and now it's got an extra 45,000 tonnes of material to work with, by the time you reach the previously undamaged floors they don't stand a chance.

By the way, I'm not referencing Popular Mechanics, and I certainly don't have any sort of religious belief in them, I just use Newton and those who followed him.

I look forward to reading Dr Seffen's paper when it becomes available though, since he's apparantly looked into things in far more detail.
Logged

amorris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1029
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2007, 02:34:06 pm »

I saw a cspan presentation of some big league college professor who was in the fore front of a conspiracy whose main "witness" was a cleaning lady who helped clean up and they found some chemical in her bucket three years later that undeniably proved that it was a demolition. un fucking beleivable. this guy was getting national converage and was the head of some university department. I thank god Im not in school right now. Id probably beleive some of this crap too.
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2007, 06:59:29 pm »

yes. ok.

does not explain the usual pain-in-the-ass doubts:

pulverization, freefall, squids, severed steel beams at 45
Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2007, 10:51:43 am »

That was such a predictable response, max.  You're a True Believer, and no amount of evidence or analysis that runs contradictory to your beliefs can possibly count for anything.

You would make a horrible engineer.
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2007, 11:15:52 am »

That's one hell of an assumption.

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2007, 05:13:16 pm »

jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 16:51

That was such a predictable response, max.  You're a True Believer, and no amount of evidence or analysis that runs contradictory to your beliefs can possibly count for anything.

You would make a horrible engineer.



I love these 9/11 threads... they NEVER END!!! bwahahahahaha

I could say the same about you jimmyjazz, couldn't I..

Perhaps YOU could enlighten me on how WTC7 fell from an engineering standpoint, and why nobody in the corporate/federal side of the fence ever talks about it?

with echo and reverb: NO OTHER BUILDING WITH A STEEL FRAME EVER FELL DOWN VERTICALLY NEAR FREEFALL SPEED AS A RESULT OF FIRE OR PLANE IMPACT!!!

cucumber sandwitches?

Logged

PRobb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2057
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2007, 06:09:18 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 12 September 2007 17:13


with echo and reverb: NO OTHER BUILDING WITH A STEEL FRAME EVER FELL DOWN VERTICALLY NEAR FREEFALL SPEED AS A RESULT OF FIRE OR PLANE IMPACT!!!

cucumber sandwitches?



Actually, that's true. Every other steel frame building that has taken a direct 400mph impact from from a big jet airliner with a full load of fuel has remained standing. Rolling Eyes
Logged
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2007, 07:06:26 pm »


No other steel buildings were externally stiffened... the towers were like steel tubes instead of internal structure as most buildings are. One floor pancaked onto the next inside this steel tube....

It's unlikely engineers will ever use this method again.

Do some homework Max.




Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2007, 02:25:05 am »

funny, as soon as somebody on tv says something how official it becomes..

Good you brought this up

the WTC towers had an exterior shell which was built as you mentioned with an exterior shell.

the building was externally stiffened to stop it from oscillating side-to-side.

this makes perfect sense! all of the load-bearing is carried by the central coloumn which is

a) full of heavy steel coloums

b) higher in density

c) built in a different way, so it should crumble in a different way

to keep the central coloumn from oscillating all you need is a 'flimsy' exterior shell.

you can see this principle being applied loosely for masts of sailboats.

the mast carries the load, the ropes keep the mast from oscillating.


so USING YOUR BRAIN, you are now faced with the problem:

why is it that when we watch the videos of the towers falling they fall floor-by-floor with the central part full of HUGE steel beams and the flimsy reinforcing shell falling at the same time..?

well there is a simple, logical explanation:

in order for the high-density central section made of heavy steel beams encapsulated in cement and the flimsy external section made of a grid of lighter beams to fall at EXACTLY the same time the element of gravity cannot be responsible.

there has to be something which nulls the difference in rigidity, mass, and flexibility differences between the central coloumn and the outer shell..

the only way to do this is to destroy both sections in a way that they do NOT resist gravity, so that they can fall in the same way, at the same time..


the architect who designed the towers did something clever, he knew that the central coloumn was going to be full of elevator shafts and therefore would have no real estate value (which is why you build skyscrapers in the first place).

the external shell ONLY had to make the building rigid and support the weight of the individual floors (light) and it's own weight (normal).

furthermore the building was reinforced in at least two different points, so that the external shell was interrupted and one or two floor's worth of the building were built stronger.

in effect it was like three sections one on top of another.

SO WHY did the fall of the buildings not slow down even one bit when the building fell through the reinforced floors?

for the same reason that the external shell fell at the same rate as the central coloumn..

the floors were blown out.

TV is a COMMERCIAL medium...


turn off your TV and use your head.

Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2007, 04:13:54 am »

As usual max misses out or gets wrong pretty much all the relevant details.

It is well known amongst those who actually bother to read on the subject that the structure of the twin towers was unusual for the time, in order to maximize rentable real estate support was moved to the perimeter walls, which far from being a simple facia actually supported a notable proportion of the building's weight.

In addition the core was not encased in thick concrete as max would have us believe.

Finally there is video evidence that the core did not actually collapse as quickly as the perimeters, in the case of at least one tower part of it can be seen sticking up through the dust cloud for somewhere between 10 and 15 seconds after the rest of the collapse has finished.

As well as all this it's pretty obvious from Max's comments about TV that he hasn't even bothered to think about what was presented at the start of this thread.

The BBC haven't broadcast anything, this wasn't their study, they haven't made a program on it. All they have done is report on the work of a Cambridge lecturer from the Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Division, who teaches amongst other things Structural Steelwork , one who has been published more than thirty times on a variety of subjects in peer reviewed science and engineering publications.

Of course if Max wants to challenge Dr Seffen credentials or conclusions he's quite at liberty to obtain a copy of the paper and point out the error in the guy's calculations or data.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2007, 05:00:27 am »

Or perhaps Max would prefer to challenge a demolitions expert who was actually at ground zero?

Quote:

“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up