It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 demolition theory challenged

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   

9/11 demolition theory challenged


news.bbc.co.uk

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
The report is not published online as yet but i will include a link to it once its been added.
Could finally be an end to the demolition conspiracy.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   

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.


I guess he thought the core was made of Jello?

How else does he think the buildings collapsed? What about when the building was full of people, was it near collapse then?

I'll be most interested in reading this paper.


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.


Occam's Razor? *laugh*

I wonder if he goes after building 7 as well... *ponder*


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").


*sigh*


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers


Question #2

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Angry Danish]

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Angry Danish]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
As far as I'm personally concerned they were BUSTED with the demolition of WTC7 (reporting on BBC it had collapsed 30 minutes before it did), so I presume they did it on the towers also.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join