Cambridge Takes on the Truthers
The school of Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking and some of the worlds top scientist and engineers has weighed in why the WTC fell and continued to collapse. As no surprise they saw nothing to the controlled demolition conspiracy theorist claims.
It’s only enforces what I have always said, the brightest and the best are NOT the inside job types, that spot is reserved and rightfully so for the lowlife side of the world. It amazes me that truthers being made up of the most dim-witted of society get upset when we laugh at them and point out the obvious lunacy of what they are selling. It’s like dealing with creationist, they are dumb and are completely determined to stay ignorant just so they can keep their well loved fantasy going.
I will be sure to post a link to the paper when it comes available.
9/11 “conspiracy” theories challenged by Cambridge research 11 September 2007
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
The new paper, by Dr Keith Seffen, uses established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
Although the causes that initiated the collapse of the twin towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.
Some have even dared to suggest that the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings were the result of a conspiracy that extended to the top of government itself.
Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering, was moved to find a scientific explanation for the collapse when he heard about reports of possible insider involvement. Claims of “controlled demolition” were being suggested, in order to explain the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
“I thought immediately that there had to be a rational explanation for why collapse happened as it did, one which draws on engineering principles,” he said. “After searching the current literature, it became clear that many studies focused on the phase just before collapse settles in.
“They rightly show that the combination of fire and impact damage severely impaired those parts of the building close to where the aircraft hit to hold the weight of the building above. The top parts were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.”
Dr Seffen’s new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Journal of Engineering Mechanics, focuses on calculating the residual capacity of the building to resist the weight of the floors above under collapse conditions.
He then develops a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, which simulates the successive squashing, or “pan-caking” of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified. The process is already well known from other studies of progressive collapse, but usually applies to other structures such as undersea pipelines, rather than buildings.
This allowed Dr Seffen to predict that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited, and once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down – just a little longer than the free-falling of a coin dropped from the top of either tower.
“The aim was to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began,” he said.
“In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected.”
For further information, please contact the University of Cambridge Office of Communications on 01223 332300
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002
6 Responses to “Cambridge Takes on the Truthers”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hello traitor. What a cowardly little website you have here. The truth is self evident. If Jet fuel could reach temperatures that could affect hardened steel then we’d be using it instead of demolition teams. We’d just roll a few barrels down the hallways and that’d be that. But then, in that world, car engines would melt, and so would stove tops. Stephen Hawking is your shining example? Strange, I don’t remember Stephen ever working as an architect, or handling hardened steel, or working on aircraft? Has he ever even taken a fire safety course? Didn’t think so. So this DR. S? Dr. of what? And strange, no comment from the doctor on visible squibs, WTC7 falling down instead of on its side, or the photos of angle cut beams. Oh, but debunkers claim workers did that but… truth being self evident says otherwise. Because cutting at an angle like that would require more time and effort than just a… straight cut, wouldn’t it? And what’s your Doctor say about the government’s TWO plane paths for the “plane” that hit the Pentagon? Strange that the black box data shows (it?) coming straight in as eyewitnesses, including cops, say but if that’s true… then how could it knock down light poles far down the street? Maybe your Stephen Hawking can sugar coat your ears with a quantum THEORY that works for you and puts that plane in two positions at the same time/space, makes a traitor like you sleep well at night.
maybe Dr seffen can explain the collapse of building 7 too
Where’s the paper? _ it is published? _ has it been peer reviewed so that you can stand over it? Or are you relying on rumours and say so which you so quickly accuse others of.
I love it when truthers show their ignorance, it only helps to prove my point that as a group you inside job freaks are the dumbest of the dim.
Let me enlighten you on some facts as you have shown you are in extreme need of some sort of education.
If you had done any sort of research at all you would know that all modern car motors pistons are made of ALUMINUM! as are most of the engine blocks. What keeps them from being destroyed by heat is a constant supply of coolant and a large volume of cool intake air. Now if the WTC had liquid cooled steel frames and an air conditioning system able to handle air temperatures of 1000 degrees or more then the buildings would still be standing. See… even a dumb guy like you can learn.
You obviously has very poor comprehension skills, you will note I didn’t say Hawk ins was going to investigate the WTC collapse but that a school who produces such great minds as his are. Cambridge being one of the best schools for high level engineering will no doubt have the best mind in the field on the case, unlike truthers who believe such unskilled people like THEOLOGIAN David Ray Griffin, when did HE engineer a building, as for that matter when did Stephen Jones? In fact why do no major experts in structural engineering or large structure design buy any of the conspiracy theorist hype? No… all you have are at best second rate architects who have build nothing bigger then a house.
The angle cut beams is another shining example of you low mental ability, Clean-up people cut those beams at an angle to get them to fall in a certain direction. Ask yourself this Einstein… why would the people who did the controlled demolition you say happened cut those same beams at an angle? HINT: to control the direction they fall!!!! BUT YOU are so stupid as to ask a question that proves your own silly theory wrong!
I am sorry you are such a simpleton but if you were not you would not be a truther.
Now that you are on the topic you may want to include this update on the Seffen paper:
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/11/wtc-collapse-research-cited-in.html
Looks to me like at this point that paper may not even exist. But we’ll wait and see, I for one am certainly curious to see what that distinguished scholar has to say.
And by the way - if I remember correctly those car parts are nto alluminum but mostly duralluminum (an alluminum and iron alloy). A pure aluuminum engine block would likely just crack from detonation. Sorry about going off topic.
Nice to see you’re taking my figures of speech and sarcasm out of context. But let’s talk about the can of worms you just opened.
Reached 1,000 degrees did it? Sounds like you’re parroting the NIST lie that they’ve already been busted on. Unfortunately, Jet A-1 doesn’t burn that hot. It burns in the low, low temperature range of 260-315 degrees C. in open air. 18 survivors also talked about this FACT. They said the fireball was intense… for about 20 seconds and all that was left was small fires after that. Office fires typically burn well under 700 degrees. At around 700 degrees in a RAGING fire you will see the windows shatter, red glowing steel in daylight, and massive white smoke. But what the facts show quite clearly is the windows are mostly intact, the small fires that are left after the fuel burnt off in the fireball are clearly oxygen starved and burning black indicating a much cooler fire and the presence of HUMANS in the fire zone indicates a VERY LOW temperature of fire. Nowhere near the 1,000 degree WHOPPER of a lie that NIST claims. Hardened steel melts at the very HIGH temperature of 1538 C. At half that temp. HS loses 50% of its strength but the temp must be sustained and steadily increasing, which it wasn’t. 1000 degrees sustained would have left ZERO survivors, would have been a massive affair with nothing but white smoke, glowing red steel, and would have taken a lot longer than an hour in time given the fact that interconnected steel conducts heat away from the source. The visible facts demonstrate the fire was realistically in the 260 to 450 degree range where it was still burning and getting cooler and cooler as it ran out of fuel to burn. I don’t know of too many humans that can live in 1,000 degrees of sustained temperature, do you?
So the fire didn’t cause the collapse. What about damage?
In the second tower hit notice that the plane hit at an angle and came out the side causing very little IF ANY damage to the 48 core columns. So you have no high temps, not even high enough to come close to weakening the steel. You have no major damage to the core. But… to play devil’s advocate for you, IF the second plane had caused damage it would surely have been to a corner meaning that it would have TOPPLED OVER on its side, not a total collapse straight down, which would have required the simultaneous collapse of all the core columns. Toppled over on its side… didn’t you yourself mention something about direction of fall?
No hot temperatures.
No damage to ALL the core columns.
No rational reason for a building collapse at all… unless of course there are demolitions involved.
This also is echoed in WTC7. Little damage on one side, no plane hit, no MAGIC high burning fuel, uneven fires hardly burning on one side in only a few floors. To again play devil’s adovcate, IF there had been “massive” damage on the southside… the building would have fallen over on its side. Instead we see a simultaneous collapse indicating the core columns have all buckled simultaneously allowing the building to fall straight down.
Let me ask you some questions. Ever put out any fires yourself? Ever had any fire training? Ever been around aircraft? How many years of military service have you had and at what level? Ever worked on say, IFF transponders, or around missiles, how about black boxes? Worked around them enough to know what is bullshit from what is being reported in the news? Hmm? Seems to me that a person with your “comprehension skills” would have checked that 1,000 figure to see if it was true… or just some bullshit the NIST and FEMA threw out there to protect their $$$ interests and their jobs.