9/11 conspiracy theorists are wrong - bring on the science!

[Don Rizzle]

9/11 demolition theory challenged
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").

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.


In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"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.

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.

'Fair assumption'

The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".

"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.


He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.
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.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

Published: 2007/09/11 01:45:47 GMT

© BBC MMVII

[virtuoso]

Ah yes, very ordinary, if fire could bring down a building which was built to withstand attacks from aircraft, insurance companies would refuse to provide protection.
Building 7 was not struck by any aircraft and was instead hit by debris, yet other buildings in much closer viscinity to the towers were also struck and though sustained damage, the integrity of the structure held up to the impact.
The firefighters said there are bombs in the building everyone get out.
Bring on the science? ah so when respected architects and engineers cast doubt on how the towers fell, they to become conspiracy theorists do they?
Did you even know that up until very recently when the original blueprints were released publicly, no one was talking about the 20 central core columns, after all, it kind of upset the clear cut explanation.
What kind of collapse, brings forth an almighty ploom of smoke, so huge and powerful that it rockets down the streets far and beyond the immediate area.
What kind of collapse literally throws bodies onto the surrounding roofs?
I notice to how the new "official explanations" continue to contradict the previous one, for a long time they were happy to stick to the concept of a pancake collapse, however this can be deemed to be either shoddy investigation or evil deceit. This is because when you use the pancake collapse theory calculation, it would still have to taken much longer for the buillding to collapse than what actually occurred.

People know full well that many respected figures in the construction industry question the official story and people realise that popular mechanics is run by a guy whose first cousin is Michael Chertoff and is a part of the Hearst Publishing Group nuff said.

[Twentytwofifty]

Only a nutjob would believe that something other than the airplanes were responsible for bringing the buildings down.

[Don Rizzle]

Ah yes, very ordinary, if fire could bring down a building which was built to withstand attacks from aircraft, insurance companies would refuse to provide protection.
Building 7 was not struck by any aircraft and was instead hit by debris, yet other buildings in much closer viscinity to the towers were also struck and though sustained damage, the integrity of the structure held up to the impact.
The firefighters said there are bombs in the building everyone get out.
Bring on the science? ah so when respected architects and engineers cast doubt on how the towers fell, they to become conspiracy theorists do they?
Did you even know that up until very recently when the original blueprints were released publicly, no one was talking about the 20 central core columns, after all, it kind of upset the clear cut explanation.
What kind of collapse, brings forth an almighty ploom of smoke, so huge and powerful that it rockets down the streets far and beyond the immediate area.
What kind of collapse literally throws bodies onto the surrounding roofs?
I notice to how the new "official explanations" continue to contradict the previous one, for a long time they were happy to stick to the concept of a pancake collapse, however this can be deemed to be either shoddy investigation or evil deceit. This is because when you use the pancake collapse theory calculation, it would still have to taken much longer for the buillding to collapse than what actually occurred.

People know full well that many respected figures in the construction industry question the official story and people realise that popular mechanics is run by a guy whose first cousin is Michael Chertoff and is a part of the Hearst Publishing Group nuff said.

What makes you so certain, may i see your engineering doctorate?

[jeromechickenbone]

I don't know what happened on 9/11.  I'm not a conspiracy nut at all, but I think there needs to be a full investigation and any inconsistencies need to be answered.

[Sparegeez]

Only a nutjob would believe that something other than the airplanes were responsible for bringing the buildings down.

My history teacher believed it LOL.

[Laconic]

Ah yes, very ordinary, if fire could bring down a building which was built to withstand attacks from aircraft, insurance companies would refuse to provide protection.
Building 7 was not struck by any aircraft and was instead hit by debris, yet other buildings in much closer viscinity to the towers were also struck and though sustained damage, the integrity of the structure held up to the impact.
The firefighters said there are bombs in the building everyone get out.
Bring on the science? ah so when respected architects and engineers cast doubt on how the towers fell, they to become conspiracy theorists do they?
Did you even know that up until very recently when the original blueprints were released publicly, no one was talking about the 20 central core columns, after all, it kind of upset the clear cut explanation.
What kind of collapse, brings forth an almighty ploom of smoke, so huge and powerful that it rockets down the streets far and beyond the immediate area.
What kind of collapse literally throws bodies onto the surrounding roofs?
I notice to how the new "official explanations" continue to contradict the previous one, for a long time they were happy to stick to the concept of a pancake collapse, however this can be deemed to be either shoddy investigation or evil deceit. This is because when you use the pancake collapse theory calculation, it would still have to taken much longer for the buillding to collapse than what actually occurred.

People know full well that many respected figures in the construction industry question the official story and people realise that popular mechanics is run by a guy whose first cousin is Michael Chertoff and is a part of the Hearst Publishing Group nuff said.

WTC 1 & 2 had 47 massive core columns and 240 perimeter columns.
WTC 7 had around 25 core and 58 perimeter columns.
Apparently this guy forgot to mention the pools of molten metal underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7 weeks later when, in fact, the maximum temp in the towers was 1500 degrees, about half the temp to melt steel.  Either which way the Conservation of Momentum does not allow a progressive collapse of that nature.  Not to mention the buildings were designed to take 2 plane wrecks and hurricanes without collapse.
How about Larry Silverstein admitting that WTC 7 was demolished?
How about the 20 second countdown over the frequency radios before the collapse?
How about all the firefighter testimony?
How about that new Zogby poll just released saying 51% of Americans want a new independent investigation with 67% saying look into Bush and Cheney specifically? 
Just like these bullshit ass Bin Laden tapes, it's about timing.
The perpetrators are very worried and they should be.

I with you Virtuoso.  People have no idea.

[boycriedwolf619]

9/11 Inside Job (sick ass song) - http://www.zshare.net/audio/3602845feb87b7/

[Shallow]

If I was a billionaire I'd find some land in the middle of nowhere, rebuild the towers exactly as they were built and the have planes flown into them. Just to see what happens.

[boycriedwolf619]

If I was a billionaire I'd find some land in the middle of nowhere, rebuild the towers exactly as they were built and the have planes flown into them. Just to see what happens.

I like the way you think props 1+

[MidoriHaze]

I don't know what happened on 9/11.  I'm not a conspiracy nut at all, but I think there needs to be a full investigation and any inconsistencies need to be answered.

Problem with conspiracies is people will believe what they want to believe despite evidence, would just end up being a waste of time and money.

[boycriedwolf619]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FHYzsFW1Es" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/5FHYzsFW1Es</a> 

[Shallow]

I don't know what happened on 9/11.  I'm not a conspiracy nut at all, but I think there needs to be a full investigation and any inconsistencies need to be answered.

Problem with conspiracies is people will believe what they want to believe despite evidence, would just end up being a waste of time and money.

Well I wouldn't do it to show the world. I'd do it just for my own satisfaction. If the buildings collapse the way it did on 9/11 then I'll believe it wasn't an iside job. It they don't fall down then I will believe it was. I'd be a billionaire so with rest of my oney I'd either spend it working for against the current system of government.

[virtuoso]

I shall reiterate what I said above, respected figures in the construction industry, have said this looks like a controlled demolition. Now what I was saying to you, was that if you can dismiss those who question as crazies nuts despite their knowledge, experience and technical nouse, then you have become so deeply brainwashed. As far as the official investigation is concerned, the majority of the victims families are demanding a new investigation because they to are seething with anger at the perceived cover up and yet they are being refused. Meanwhile the deceit continues unabaited because the same groups who are refusing to allow for a new investigation, are the ones hiding behind those who lost their lives, when they attempt to emotionally blackmail into silence and acceptance.

As far as the points I was illustrating specifcally relating to the towers, I was incorrect when making mention of the core colums, thanks for pointing that one out! however you can't deny what the firefighters themselves said. Also for those who attempt to laugh off the towers collapse by pointing out that aircraft struck them, they can't and won't answer the collapse of the world trade centre 7, instead all they can resort to is conspiracy theorist conspiracy theorist. When you point that Popular Mechanics has a slight conflict of interest, "conspiracy theorist" when you point out out every glaring inconsistency. again just the same 2 words repeated endlessly.

It's like people are able to wipe the slate clean every single time, the Gulk Of Tonkin has now been openly admitted to have been a staged event. This fabrication of that event led to a war which cost the lives of 56.000 U.S soldiers and that is only the official figure. A conservative figure would be over 100.000 owing to the fact that a percentage of those who sustained injury would have died as a result of those injuries, but of course would not have mentioned in the official count because they did not die in combat. Then of course you can't forget about the millions of vietnamese who died during this war, the hundreds of thousands of americans living without arms and limbs thanks to the evil effects of agent orange and yet, one of the big retorts to any suggestion of a conspiracy in september 11 is th notion that no single american would allow the deaths of a few thousand people.....yeah right.

[Laconic]

Even the London Guardian writer Peter Tatchell knows something is wrong 

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html

9/11 - the big cover-up?

Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.
Peter Tatchell

Articles

    * Latest
    * Show all

Profile
Webfeed
All Peter Tatchell articles
About Webfeeds
September 12, 2007 10:30 AM | Printable version

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;
and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.

But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.

What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.

There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.

Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:

1) Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.

2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.

3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.

4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.

Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?

What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.