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.

 

BBC - 9/11 demolition theory challenged - GREAT WORK

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
GREAT work by the BBC !!!!!!!!
news.bbc.co.uk...



9/11 demolition theory challenged

The study analysed how the twin towers collapsed


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").


Mod Edit: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: Methods of ''Quoting'' – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.



[edit on 12/9/2007 by Umbrax]




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
So he's going to show the maths on how these buildings showed little or no resistance? Nice.


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


What? What has he got that noone else has been given access to? Would these be blueprints? Someone enlighten me.

Edit: and wheres this "great work by the BBC" in relation to this? Wtf like? For one theres nothing to review, and for two(?) the work ISN'T by the BBC.



[edit on 12-9-2007 by Azriphale]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I’m not American, so’ I’m sorry in advance if my participation in this discussion is not correct. But, just a very simple question I’m curious about. If buildings fall down, without demolition, how high is probability that this building will fall very nicely down and without upper part of it falling aside because of different resistance in a different parts of building construction? I guess probability is not very high. And there was not one but 3 buildings. I’m sorry, but it is really unbelievable. Any architect, or mathematician can explain me if there is such chance (I mean probability, that all 3 buildings fall in the same nicely way)? If probability is very low, then I think no need to search for any other evidences of demolition. If probability is high enough, then God help you to live in such buildings.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romas
I’m not American, so’ I’m sorry in advance if my participation in this discussion is not correct.


Of course its correct, im Irish. I need to post more here too!!


But, just a very simple question I’m curious about. If buildings fall down, without demolition, how high is probability that this building will fall very nicely down and without upper part of it falling aside because of different resistance in a different parts of building construction?

Exactly, its very strange and i'd love to see these equations and the evidence and meduim they were formed by.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

"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.


One simple question: Who "quantified" the "initiation part"?

NIST offered a diagram of their theory. That's all. Never tested it. Never even showed FBD's on where the forces were acting and how the failure therefore resulted. Nothing.


This man implies there were such demonstrations. He is wrong. To prove me wrong on this point, simply post the actual figures showing the forces acting on the trusses and how they failed according to NIST's hypothesis. Or link me to the laboratory tests where they actually reproduced the truss failures with fire. I ask this simply because I know no one will be able to do it, because no one has ever done it and the figures do not exist. And no one will prove me wrong. All I'll see is ranting and fallacious logic to try to make up for it, if anything at all.



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.



This is what I'm going to be wanting to see when this paper comes out. A building collapsing as NIST suggests would be an extremely chaotic system, not something you could easily assign units to and slap into a formula. If he can get his modeling to work out (and it will probably have to have been done by a computer for a length of time), put out the appropriate numbers (that march observations and requirements they imply), and represent the collapses realistically as they actually happened, then I'll be satisfied.


A global collapse mechanism finally has to be defined for this work to be very accurate, too. And that's something not even NIST tried to touch, with all of their staff and funding, as the author of the paper in question himself points out.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
when a conspiracy-theory becomes too convincing, the conspirators quickly assemble a TV-show to counter it. The fact that this topic is being taken up by the mainstream and that the mainstream even feels the need to contradict it, is a good sign that there might be something to the demolition theory.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The only fact in all this is that the BBC in England are the FOX (FAUX) tv of the good old USA...

The media there is controlled exactly, if not more discreetly than in the US.

What goes out on tv is constantly monitored, chopped or changed if it does´nt agree with BBC policy.

The BBC is a British traditon..its like bowler hats, cricket and a cup of tea and a scone on sunday with the vicar..anything SO british would support the government in whatever it wants or says and god save the queen.

So, really, this holds as much water as the official version offered by the 9/11 commission and the Warren report.


[edit on 12-9-2007 by andy1972]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972
The only fact in all this is that the BBC in England are the FOX (FAUX) tv of the good old USA...


LOL! Anyway, this is a news report.

It's like saying you wouldn't trust the BBC if they reported that Zimbabwe beat Australia in the 20-20 Cricket world cup....

The BBC may misinterpret news stories. But they don't invent them

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Essan]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join