• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

September 11th: The History of 9/11

jimv1 said:
Ted and Jerry.

I completely understand your points about peer review and can see that the evidence these professional architects and engineers have come up with should be put under wider scrutiny.

.....................

The point is that you have both been asking for professionals in the field to stand up and be counted and give their reasons why they think WTC7 was a controlled demolition and what the repercussions are for the collapse of the towers. Now when they do come forward, instead of discussing the evidence they've provided, you adopt the smoke and mirrors approach of killing the message by criticising the air it travels through.

I haven't asked for anything of the sort. What I have pointed out is that so far many claims have been made about 'experts' who do not have expertise in the field we've discussed. And as I've already pointed out the existence of a small number of experts within a profession palls by comparison with the vast number of experts within that profession who have not come forward in support of their view.
 
A peer-review does not produce a 'verdict' on the truth or falsity of any ideas expressed, merely an opinion on whether the ideas conform to scientific methodology. It's up to the wider scientific community to assess how probable these ideas are in explaining the facts.

But if there is not sufficient data available (because a lot of it was hoovered away), then no scientific analysis is possible.

An analysis of computer simulations might be suitable for publication in a computer science journal, but that is no guarantee that the simulations match the reality of what actually happened on 9/11, as that would be dependent on the input data.


But even if scientific data can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the collapse of the towers owed nothing to a 'demolition' conspiracy, there still remain all the other doubts about exactly how and why the attack took place in the first place. So demolishing the 'demolition theory' does not automatically demolish all the other conspiracy theories, and laying too much emphasis on one or other conspiracy is trying to lay a smokescreen over all the others.
 
rynner said:
But even if scientific data can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the collapse of the towers owed nothing to a 'demolition' conspiracy, there still remain all the other doubts about exactly how and why the attack took place in the first place. So demolishing the 'demolition theory' does not automatically demolish all the other conspiracy theories, and laying too much emphasis on one or other conspiracy is trying to lay a smokescreen over all the others.

True but by not dealing with the specific claims as they arise only invites criticism from those advocating the conspiracy theory.
 
Depending on the situation peer-review can also act as a form of censorhip and could be used to maintain the scientific status quo, or even maintain the view posited by a given journal (for example: International Society for Complexity, Information and Design ran into trouble for their peer reviews -they support intelligent design).

Of course cynically you could argue that given that because governments and corporations fund vast tract of research programs, you could argue that it is in a scientists best interests (assuming he wishes to eat) to toe the line. Just a thought...
 
rynner said:
But even if scientific data can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the collapse of the towers owed nothing to a 'demolition' conspiracy, there still remain all the other doubts about exactly how and why the attack took place in the first place. So demolishing the 'demolition theory' does not automatically demolish all the other conspiracy theories, and laying too much emphasis on one or other conspiracy is trying to lay a smokescreen over all the others.

But if various qualified professionals who are pro-conspiracy address different aspects of the event, based on their knowledge base, then the whole thing could be open to their scrutiny. I don't think anyone here is trying to lay a smokescreen over things - the example of the demolition has cropped up simply because it's a current topic within this thread.
 
Here's an interesting read from the Guardian 8)

http://tinyurl.com/2j96qx



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.

It continues.
 
lupinwick said:
Depending on the situation peer-review can also act as a form of censorhip and could be used to maintain the scientific status quo, or even maintain the view posited by a given journal (for example: International Society for Complexity, Information and Design ran into trouble for their peer reviews -they support intelligent design).

That's example is different though, IMHO. After all, arguments would have to revolve back to the existence of God, etc.. Concerns about 9/11 are apparently based on the material world and the workings of various aspects on the day itself.

Of course cynically you could argue that given that because governments and corporations fund vast tract of research programs, you could argue that it is in a scientists best interests (assuming he wishes to eat) to toe the line. Just a thought...

So then peer-review is useless and nothing ever gets done..? ;)
 
jimv1 said:
So what you're saying Jerry is that you haven't the relevant experience to disprove the allegations of a demolition theory? Yet you've used several threads and loads of posts countering evidence that has been put in front of you.

Where have you been getting your information that supports the official line all this time?

I can still raise questions about any given theory based on what I know and what seems to make sense or what doesn't. However, if various qulaified professionals have concerns that are based on a more learned approach, they should also tackle that based on their own expertise. And hopefully do so by means other than just the internet, as I've already mentioned. All I can do in my own way is question the questions, and the reason I've raised objections thus far to the various theories is because they don't seem to make sense. If there are solid scientific reasons why the conspiracists are right, then I can only judge that by what I know and hope that those reasons are put forward for scrutiny by other professionals.
 
Jerry_B said:
lupinwick said:
Depending on the situation peer-review can also act as a form of censorhip and could be used to maintain the scientific status quo, or even maintain the view posited by a given journal (for example: International Society for Complexity, Information and Design ran into trouble for their peer reviews -they support intelligent design).

That's example is different though, IMHO. After all, arguments would have to revolve back to the existence of God, etc.. Concerns about 9/11 are apparently based on the material world and the workings of various aspects on the day itself.

Of course cynically you could argue that given that because governments and corporations fund vast tract of research programs, you could argue that it is in a scientists best interests (assuming he wishes to eat) to toe the line. Just a thought...

So then peer-review is useless and nothing ever gets done..? ;)

Actually lupinwick's point shows the inherent weakness and potential for bias in the peer review process perfectly, the creationist drivel was successfully peer reviewed.
 
So if the peer review process is also useless and the whole system is flawed, then professionals voicing their concerns about 9/11 means nothing because they are part of that system.
 
Jerry_B said:
So if the peer review process is also useless and the whole system is flawed, then professionals voicing their concerns about 9/11 means nothing because they are part of that system.

A quick leap into the extreme can often score points from the gallery, but it's a tactic best loved by bullies and those desperate for a quick reply to a good point.

Are you a putative politician ?
 
crunchy5 said:
Jerry_B said:
So if the peer review process is also useless and the whole system is flawed, then professionals voicing their concerns about 9/11 means nothing because they are part of that system.

A quick leap into the extreme can often score points from the gallery, but it's a tactic best loved by bullies and those desperate for a quick reply to a good point.

Are you a putative politician ?

It seems like a fair point to me. On the one hand we're asked to believe that because a handful of experts support a point of view that it has validity at the same time as we're asked to believe experts drawn from the same field are not capable of carrying out a similar analysis.
 
crunchy5 said:
A quick leap into the extreme can often score points from the gallery, but it's a tactic best loved by bullies and those desperate for a quick reply to a good point.

Are you a putative politician ?

Nonsense. As for a reply to such things, ditto what Ted says above.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
crunchy5 said:
Jerry_B said:
So if the peer review process is also useless and the whole system is flawed, then professionals voicing their concerns about 9/11 means nothing because they are part of that system.

A quick leap into the extreme can often score points from the gallery, but it's a tactic best loved by bullies and those desperate for a quick reply to a good point.

Are you a putative politician ?

It seems like a fair point to me. On the one hand we're asked to believe that because a handful of experts support a point of view that it has validity at the same time as we're asked to believe experts drawn from the same field are not capable of carrying out a similar analysis.

Well there's a word about experts on the ae911truth site which I'm sure you've read by now.


Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players

Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those "experts" on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started with their conclusions and worked backward to some "leading hypotheses."
Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nair's company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.6

Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8


http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/ ... t_wtc.html
 
jimv1 said:
Well there's a word about experts on the ae911truth site which I'm sure you've read by now.

Perhaps you could link directly to this page as it's a rather large site. So far I've spent rather a lot of time on it trying to establish just what it is that the various members* believe but overwhelmingly they've neglected to offer their opinion.

*Both verified and non-verified professionals.
 
Jerry_B said:
So if the peer review process is also useless and the whole system is flawed, then professionals voicing their concerns about 9/11 means nothing because they are part of that system.

Errrm no. I never stated that the peer review system was useless, I suggested that it was flawed (as any human endeavour is) and may indeed be used as a form of censorship especially if papers don't agree with the prevailing view of science (or the views of publication it is to go in).

The funding of scientific endeavour should always be taken into account in pretty much the same way that most folks will take into account the organisation which has commissioned a report or a study.

For example, using the same data a scientist funded by greenpeace may well come to a different conclusion to a scientist funded by esso or another big petro-chem company, both scientists could get published in different peer-review journals. Greenpeace and the petro-chem companies will chose scientists who are at least close to their cause.
 
jimv1 said:
Well there's a word about experts on the ae911truth site which I'm sure you've read by now.

So what that seems to imply is that those qualified professionals in the conspiracy camp really need to get their data and findings published. If they can find with various things and demonstrate as much, they should (as I keep saying) offer it up for peer review. Making note of the internet is all well and good, but in the long run it's still just something posted on the internet. If they have professional objections they really should highlight those by more appropriate means.
 
lupinwick said:
For example, using the same data a scientist funded by greenpeace may well come to a different conclusion to a scientist funded by esso or another big petro-chem company, both scientists could get published in different peer-review journals. Greenpeace and the petro-chem companies will chose scientists who are at least close to their cause.

That I don't doubt, but the least any pro-conspiracy scientists can do is seek to get their work published for review.
 
Jerry_B said:
So what that seems to imply is that those qualified professionals in the conspiracy camp really need to get their data and findings published. If they can find with various things and demonstrate as much, they should (as I keep saying) offer it up for peer review. Making note of the internet is all well and good, but in the long run it's still just something posted on the internet. If they have professional objections they really should highlight those by more appropriate means.

Also, although the internet is great for spreading a message it's often viewed as the 21st century equivalent of 'bloke down the pub says'. A peer review would lend it far greater credibility even if it is 'fixed' in their favour.
 
The previous posts point the true difficulty. In this instance, it is probably impossible to have a fair peer review. The matter is too sensitive. For a dissenting scientist, what would be the result to try to have a publication of his viewpoint in, say, Nature or Science? It would be probably viewed as an eccentric way to resign! I'm afraid we have to rely upon our judgment, and separate the wheat from the chaff, among the data. I came to this conclusion by using my own scientific knowledge and by comparing arguments and counter-arguments from each side. Which theory held toghether, was more parsimonious, fit better with established knowledge (as assessed by proponents of any theory), was more devoid of contradictions and logical lapses etc... The official version loses on all grounds.

Jerry_B, what do you mean when you imply that some witnesses do not have the right qualifications? No one needs 'qualifications' to hear an explosion, to assert that it is one, and to report it, for example. Everyone is 'qualified' to do this. Or does the witness of a gunshot need to be an expert in ballistics to testify and be taken seriously?

ted_bloody_maul: "Besides, I think we can overestimate the extent to which other countries like France or Germany will suppress evidence on behalf of the US government."
Maybe, but maybe too we underestimate it. Are they free to speak, with no devastating backlash as a result? You're forgetting that there was at the same time the AZF affair, for example. And those countries were involved in other dark matters. For those who can read french, a link at http://forumazf.lesnews.org/ (this puzling case will need one day a presentation in English). There we have plenty of examples of 'peer-reviewed and renowned experts' talking absolute nonsense. To close the public from the facts. Which might suggest another example of inner state terrorism. And not only that, but the possibility of the use of advanced weapons (and it's not more garbage the like of Minneapolis-St Paul bridge put down by ULF weapons; this time there is serious evidence), and even of detonation of nuclear charges in french subsoil. So, not only the US, but other countries might be involved in those matters at a deep level. And probably other wrongdoings (Algeria and the GIA, for example). No wonder that they remain silent...
Besides, the situation in France, regarding 11-September, is more or less the same than in the USA. In Germany, the thesis of a US governement involvment is more widespread. Approximatively 20% of Germans believe that people inside the US state were the only perpetrators.
 
Analis said:
The previous posts point the true difficulty. In this instance, it is probably impossible to have a fair peer review. The matter is too sensitive. For a dissenting scientist, what would be the result to try to have a publication of his viewpoint in, say, Nature or Science? It would be probably viewed as an eccentric way to resign! I'm afraid we have to rely upon our judgment, and separate the wheat from the chaff, among the data. I came to this conclusion by using my own scientific knowledge and by comparing arguments and counter-arguments from each side. Which theory held toghether, was more parsimonious, fit better with established knowledge (as assessed by proponents of any theory), was more devoid of contradictions and logical lapses etc... The official version loses on all grounds.

But if various professionals share your views, but aren't prepared to publish their findings via peer review, all we really have are just more opinions. We have no way of finding out whether their views are valid in terms of hard, verifiable detail. The idea that it would lead to resignations being tended doesn't really cut it as an idea, because those professionals who question the official versions have made their opinons known already via the internet and AFAIK they haven't all been forced to resign as a result. One also still has to ask if these professionals are very much a minority, or do they have anything which their peers can support in any wider sense and bring the various areas to the fore. We won't find out if they don't offer up their findings for peer reviews. Their peers are really only the ones actually qualified to assess their findings and to be able to scrutinise it fully.

Jerry_B, what do you mean when you imply that some witnesses do not have the right qualifications? No one needs 'qualifications' to hear an explosion, to assert that it is one, and to report it, for example. Everyone is 'qualified' to do this. Or does the witness of a gunshot need to be an expert in ballistics to testify and be taken seriously?

The problem arises from what a witness (or others, after the fact) decide was the cause of the explosion. Hearing an explosion does not necessarily tell you what caused it.
 
crunchy5 said:
Here's an interesting read from the Guardian 8)

http://tinyurl.com/2j96qx



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.

It continues.

Just in case this was missed in the angst over peer reviewing I thought I'd be helpful and post it again, imo it's a very important development in this story.
 
Why's it an important development?

It just summarises the stuff that's been argued about up and down this thread already.

Of course the whole story isn't out there, but it's probably mainly to do with the intellegence agencies trying to cover-up how badly they screwed up, than anything to do with controlled demolition etc.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm
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").

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 to be 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.


Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total"
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.


Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation"
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.
 
Apologies for posting the above, I didn't realise it was already in one of the other 911 threads
 
Although provenance is important, it would probably be more helpful if we commented on the actual evidence that is being put forward rather than medium by which it is presented...which ironically, is the internet.

Instead, what we seem to have here are a few pages of glorified 'no comment'.
 
But then again, we've got pages and pages of discussion about the evidence - or what some allege is evidence - and we still don't seem to have gotten to the point where we can say that there was a conspiracy ;)
 
jimv1 said:
Although provenance is important, it would probably be more helpful if we commented on the actual evidence that is being put forward rather than medium by which it is presented...which ironically, is the internet.

Instead, what we seem to have here are a few pages of glorified 'no comment'.

Fair enough but the point has already been made that not all of us are particularly well equipped to discuss the technical aspects of the collapse/demolition. That point, I suspect applies not just to those offering the alleged 'no comment'. Besides, if we all were then there would be little value in citing the various experts who dissent from the official version and, as already pointed out, they seem still to be in a small minority and somewhat reticent about submitting their work to those experts sharing the majority view.
 
Jerry_B said:
But then again, we've got pages and pages of discussion about the evidence - or what some allege is evidence - and we still don't seem to have gotten to the point where we can say that there was a conspiracy ;)

There clearly WAS a conspiracy.

Whether it was to fly planes into buildings...
Let people fly planes into buildings....
Use the fact that planes hit buildings to promote a War on Terror etc...
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
jimv1 said:
Although provenance is important, it would probably be more helpful if we commented on the actual evidence that is being put forward rather than medium by which it is presented...which ironically, is the internet.

Instead, what we seem to have here are a few pages of glorified 'no comment'.

Fair enough but the point has already been made that not all of us are particularly well equipped to discuss the technical aspects of the collapse/demolition. That point, I suspect applies not just to those offering the alleged 'no comment'. Besides, if we all were then there would be little value in citing the various experts who dissent from the official version and, as already pointed out, they seem still to be in a small minority and somewhat reticent about submitting their work to those experts sharing the majority view.

The thing is, with enough lucre or some other promise, you can get an 'expert' to vouch for just about anything as cases of Bad Science have proved.

And while we do lack expertise in the unique area of multiple structural collapse due to terrorist actions, it seems a bit unfair when testimony like, the Reporters, Fire and Police Officers who reported explosions, for example, is discounted because certain members of this forum think they're not qualified enough. That is more armchair theorising and I think, a deliberate distraction like this whole 'peer review' thing that has got us precisely nowhere.
 
Back
Top