|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
loose_ends"][
Go to the site.
| Quote: |
core columns collapsed completely into the basement, in nice transportable pre-cut sections. the core column did not remain standing. It collapsed entirely into the basement.
any anomaly used to describe pancaking does not stand up to the fact that...the core columns were totally destroyed and offered zero resistance to the collapsing building. FACT...core columns completely collapsed. there is no reason for them to collapse fully into the basement and symmetrically straight down. Remember, they aren't a series of stacked structures like the floors. They are vertically raised and inter-welded together.
My links will be provided when i get home later this evening. |
what is your background to say what you do?
Twin towers research refutes 9/11 conspiracy theories
Anthea Lipsett
Tuesday September 11, 2007
EducationGuardian.co.uk
| Quote: |
South tower of World Trade Centre collapses. Once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down, academic says. Photograph: AP
A Cambridge University academic has shattered conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks that took place in New York six years ago today with a new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre.
Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in Cambridge's engineering department, used established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began it was destined to be rapid and total.
While the causes that initiated the collapse of the towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.
Conspiracy theorists claim US government involvement in the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings. They suggest "controlled demolition" was the reason behind the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapse of both towers.
But according to Dr Seffen's analysis of engineering principles, the way the towers collapsed 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," he said.
"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."
Dr Seffen's research showed many studies focused on the phase just before collapse begins.
"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," he said.
His new analysis, which will be published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, calculates the average strength of a given storey of the building away from the impact area as it was being squashed flat.
This allowed him to define the "residual capacity" of the building, which he then used to develop a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, simulating the successive squashing of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified.
From this, Dr Seffen predicted 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.
This shows that the speed of the collapse as actually occurred was consistent with a "pancaking" effect caused by the dual impacts of the planes. As such, the mechanics of this pancaking process were exactly the same as a controlled demolition, but starting from the top and moving downwards, he said. |
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,2166832,00.html
| Quote: |
Computer simulation of expanding truss pushing out on a perimeter column and sagging
As the fires moved on to find new sources of fuel (Desks, seats, paper, plastic, etc..) the expanded truss cools and contracts. This contraction happened over a period of time and over many floors. This is a very important point, because had it only been one floor contracting the perimeter may not have buckled as much.
If a floor sags, it pulls both the perimeter columns and core columns toward the center of the floor. Because the core columns are stronger than the perimeter, the perimeter is the side that gets pulled in.
There are plenty of photographs from every angle which show the slow progression of sagging of trusses and bowing perimeter columns |
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, that article hasn't been published yet. But here is a critique
Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
| Quote: |
The world awaits the publication of "UK engineer" Keith Seffen's "analysis" of the WTC "collapse", as promised by the BBC in an article of September 11.
The BBC piece, as we mentioned Tuesday, was changed after it was published. The original version said that Seffen's "findings are published"; the second version says Seffen's findings "are to be published". So, while we wait to find out whether the findings will actually be published, we can't do much more than look at the press release from the University of Cambridge, upon which the BBC article is apparently based.
Aside from the obvious impropriety of reporting on a scientific paper before it's been published, virtually every paragraph of the press release is either misleading or downright false.
Let's start with the headline:
| Quote: |
| "9/11 'conspiracy' theories challenged by Cambridge research". |
As we have pointed out many times, the official explanation for of the 9/11 attacks -- 19 hijackers with box-cutters -- is itself a conspiracy theory. The only point of argument between those who support the official story and those who propose alternative explanations is this: Who was involved in the conspiracy?
The text of the press release runs like this:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
As a former teacher of mathematics, and a keen observer of world events, I am very interested in any "mathematical analysis" whose results bear on the September 11th attacks. So I was somewhat disappointed -- but not especially surprised -- to find that the "new mathematical analysis" has not in fact "been published".
| Quote: |
| 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. |
As I have pointed out many times, it is misleading to describe "the destruction of the twin towers" as a "collapse". The buildings disintegrated; they didn't just fall down. Established engineering models may have been used, but what effects do they purport to explain? If the paper describes a "collapse", but the event was a "disintegration", then the paper cannot be said to explain the event, can it?
| Quote: |
| 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. |
It is true that the "causes that initiated the collapse of the twin towers" are well understood -- in some circles. But the only "understanding" of the event that makes any sense of all the available evidence involves explosives. And explosives are exactly what Keith Seffen's analysis attempts to rule out.
In my opinion, he would be better off trying to "prove" that the explosives which demolished the towers were planted by Osama bin Laden and his box-cutter-carrying henchmen. This would leave the "official conspiracy theory" intact, and that is apparently the one thing Keith Seffen is most interested in doing.
| Quote: |
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.
Here Keith Seffen is saying that the "explosives-driven" explanation of the "collapse" is irrational, and that it does not draw on engineering principles. Both statements are clearly false. Companies which do controlled demolition draw on very rigid engineering principles. If they didn't, they couldn't do their jobs.
Keith Seffen is quite correct, however, in saying that "many studies focused on the phase just before" the so-called "collapse". Those who favor the "explosives-driven" explanation have interpreted this focus as an indication that no "scientific", "rational", "non-explosive" explanation of the event has been found, nor can one be fabricated.
"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."
On the contrary; the top parts were not bound to fall down, and in fact they didn't fall down; they were still in place even as the fires died out. The sudden force that made the tops of the buildings "fall down" -- and turn to dust at the very same time! -- has never been explained, except by so-called "conspiracy theorists".
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Here at least the press release admits that Seffen's paper has not yet been published. The internal contradiction here -- has the paper been published or not? -- casts doubt on the press release as a whole. It is, after all, a single page of carefully composed text. Why would the opening paragraph say something that is directly contradicted by the text below?
It's no wonder the BBC was confused. It's almost as if the deception were intentional. And -- dare I say it? -- the self-contradictory press release reflects poorly on the University of Cambridge.
The press release continues:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
The "pancake" theory has already been rejected by a government-sponsored investigation; but even if it were still held as part of the "official" explanation, it makes no sense in view of the design of the buildings. Even if the floors did "pancake", the central core may have remained standing, or it may have toppled over. As we all know, this is not what happened. And the "pancake" theory gives no indication of what happened to the load-bearing columns. Indeed, some early "explanations" for the "collapse" portrayed the towers as having no central columns at all.
But according to the press release, once having developed his "dynamic model",
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.
Again the text is misleading. To "predict" means to say what will happen in the future. Nobody can "predict" the past. And of course it remains to be seen how Keith Seffen could "predict" that the bottom portions of both buildings -- undamaged steel and concrete -- could offer only "a little" more resistance than thin air.
But it seems -- according to the press release -- that this is exactly what his paper attempts to do.
"The aim was to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began," he said.
No "credible scientific explanation" is necessary, of course, because one is already available. It may be political dynamite, but it's credible -- for those with open minds.
Having laid all this obvious spin on the table, the press release ends with a flurry of nonsense:
"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."
Surely the Laws of Physics do not distinguish between accidental and deliberate impacts. And although the buildings shook for a few minutes after the impact, they remained standing. So clearly they did absorb the shock.
The amount of fuel is almost irrelevant, since most of it burned up outside the buildings. And the remaining fuel didn't last very long after that. The buildings were still standing, and the firefighters inside were saying that the remaining fires could be easily extinguished.
But then ... boom boom boom boom boom!
More than a hundred witnesses described seeing and/or hearing explosives going off in the buildings, just before they started to disintegrate. Is it irrational to take their testimony into account? To ignore these witnesses is dishonest -- it's a political approach, not a scientific one.
But defenders of the official story have no other choice. Because if they say the witnesses are all lying, then why are they all telling the same story? Is this a conspiracy of eyewitnesses?
This is a very dangerous line of questioning, because "conspiracy theory" is exactly what Keith Seffen and his "rational", "scientific" "analysis" is trying to move away from.
I may be reading too much into this press release. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and we won't know for sure whether Keith Seffen's paper contains any proof -- or anything approaching proof -- until we see it. If we ever see it.
If the paper is eventually published, and if it proves that "in all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural", then I will tip my frozen cap to the paper, and to its author, and I will encourage the world to do the same. But if it doesn't, then the world and I will have no choice but to consider Keith Seffen a willing accomplice, an accessory-after-the-fact in a most despicable case of mass murder. |
___
Right back at you Joo......but we can't really discuss this paper seeing as it HASNT BEEN PUBLISHED YET |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You need to show who wrote it.
Oh I found it.
Your blogger has a link to http://www.serendipity.li/recent.html
that is a site with people like John Kamaniski on it.
If he hangs out with those like that I don't think he is an honest guy. I would say he is not an honest guy looking for answers but a guy out to put out a politcal agenda.
| Quote: |
mike rivero
What Really Happened |
another holocaust denier
Throw your witness out!
~~~
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
You need to show who wrote it.
Oh I found it.
Your blogger has a link to http://www.serendipity.li/recent.html
that is a site with people like John Kamaniski on it.
If he hangs out with those like that I don't think he is an honest guy. I would say he is not an honest guy looking for answers but a guy out to put out a politcal agenda. |
joo, it hasn't been published. how can anyone critique something that hasn't been published?
it is a critique of the article that sites the study that HASNT BEEN PUBLISHED
again, we will have to wait until it is make PUBLIC before we can discuss it....that is the scientific method |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am throwing out your witness now.
He has show himself to have very poor judgement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dude, your freakin paper ISNT PUBLISHED
do you understand the scientific process?
when it is published, i will consider your paper.
until then,
NO COLLAPSE SEQUENCE under the official story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't come with that witness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Don't come with that witness. |
what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The one who wrote the critique about the article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The one who wrote the critique about the article. |
sure joo, i'll give that one to you this time seeing as the article isn't even published yet.
sorry i didn't back up my claims with links last night. will do it this evening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
prison planet is another questionable source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
prison planet is another questionable source. |
i agree totally.
however the CIA agent is real and his comments are real.
any comments as to why this well known CIA agent suspects 9/11 was an inside job? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of CIA people lose their minds. Some CIA agents went over to the Soviet Union and denounced the US.
Was he is the CIA at the time of 9-11? How do we know he worked for the CIA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
