It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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").
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
Originally posted by Romas
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?
"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.
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...