[ninakat]

[water]

"No."

I choose to live in the reality of common sense rather than be forced into artificial consciousness by the slimy salesmen of a premeditated culture of fear. I've slept with sociopaths... I know their intoxicating allure.. it is vapid, for all its false drama.. NEVER AGAIN.

Thank you for the list Hugh.

[orz]

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hysterical. Pathetic.
Keith Seffen has ties to spooks like Christoper Andrew. More below.

The BBC article opens with bald statement that this guy has proven something
BUT HE HASN'T. HE 'CLAIMS' TO HAVE. There's no evidence offered whatsoever.
And the BBC uses propaganda tactics to lend false authority to NOTHING.

The BBC is a tool of MI5 and MI6 just as the US has its Operation Mockingbird CIA-controlled mainstream press like the WPost and NYTimes.
In fact, CIA and MI5 collude in UK media as these articles which I put in the Data Dump forum illustrate-

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=13121
(MI5 + CIA in UK media attack Labour Party)

Keith Seffen was earlier this year appointed to a position at Corpus Christi College (UK) when two sudden unexplained resignations required filling in.
The announcement was by:
Professor Christopher Andrew who is a British spook.
http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/480/1/

Andrew has worked with MI5 and CIA on the disinfo book called 'The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.'
http://www.cantab.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=80&Itemid=108

Andrew also testified to Congress in the 1990s on how dangerous the Soviets still were despite the end of the Cold War.

So Keith Seffen is in prime academic spook company.
No wonder he's pushing Empire-supporting disinfo.

Not only that, the physical proof of demolition isn't just the elapsed time of the buildings coming down.

He's going to ignore:
>the steel beams flying out horizontally hundreds of feet with enormous explosive force.
>the massive pools of molten metal and thermate.
>what happened to WTC7.
>the visual evidence of thermate pouring out of the WTC.
>the visual evidence of the top of WTC2 stopping its rotation and disintegrating above the plane impact point.

Plus he's going to ignore the human whistleblowers and shills:
>the first-hand testimony of firemen and other first-responders describing explosions and controlled demolition.
>the NIST and FEMA and Underwriters Laboratories cover-up of physical evidence and events.
...and much more.

The biggest Achilles heel of the Inside Job is Conservation of Momentum and still has the shills stumped how to fudge that one. The shills have tried:
1) Woo woo. Judy Wood's "power beams from space."
2) Mystical math and imagery. Manuel Garcia's "converging impact ripples."
3) Fantasy computer video. Purdue University.
4) Lying about the construction of the WTC. PBS and Abolhassan Astaneh.

Check out this USG publicity shot of Astenah. (too big, now a link)
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/astaneh05a-1%20medium2.JPG

That Berkeley prof Astenah heads the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S so-called investigation of the WTC for the National Science Foundation out of Arlington, Virginia.
http://www.nsf.gov/about/

Wanna see this Berkely prof who just came out with his 'explanation' lie?
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/WTC-9-11-2007_Lecture_by_Astaneh_at_%20Sibley%20Aud_UCBerkeley%20Campus.pdf

Look at what is missing from his pdf of WTC design. No inner core.
He focuses ALL attention on the outer walls. Hmmm.

All they can do is keep trying new lies to buy time the way General Petraeus is right now in Congress.





http://www.ae911truth.org/
(Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)


168 architectural and engineering professionals
and 382 other supporters including A/E students
have joined us in calling on Congress for a new investigation.



As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

[ninakat]

Thanks for those links Hammer of Los. Actually, the BBC report states: The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics so that might explain why this isn't available yet.

So the BBC is jumping the gun again.... kinda reminds me of their "Building 7 has collapsed" story, before the fact. I know that's not really a fair comparison, but they are lending credibility to this study before it has even been published.

Presumably, this Seffen guy has a reputation to uphold though, so it'll be interesting to see how this develops when his findings are finally published.

[Hammer of Los]

The Winter Patriot

[water]

"So now all the other anomalies are proof of CD?"

nope, now you can see how youre being manipulated.. take or leave CD, the whole affair just smells to high heaven.. read the PNAC.. "A new pearl harbor event" .. I mean come on.. how many details need to be strung together and spoon fed before the people realize they're being heavily lied to for a reason... a reason not at all in their own interest or for their own benefit..

Correct me if Im wrong (and dont just say 'youre wrong' tell me why Im wrong) but alot of people died in Normandy for example for us to be able to speak freely today, alot of people died for this civilization to be open, and a bunch of fucks can literally shit on those sacrifices to make more money out of your pocket? And the majority of the people those guys in Normandy fucking died for look on and applaud (sometimes) ?!

Does someone like you even deserve to be free? Hell yes! But dont get comfortable being that way if you saddle up with your own hijackers. Cuz youre freedom of expression now could turn into this later, and if it goes that far, wont you feel silly about not having checked twice?

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-3386810561868116434

as a footnote: some people in this world use other people to achieve what they want.

nother footnote: Hitler had the Reichstag burned

nother footnote: Spartacus was a ceasers creation

last footnote: Sociopaths exist and are sometimes found in positions of authority, and I know they are the most manipulative fucks you will NEVER hope to meet.. so open your eyes and LOOK at what they have already taken from you under the guise of what "others" have done to you, extrapolate that ten years into the future and ask yourself kindly if you think that is a step forward, in any sense of the term 'forward'.

[ninakat]

Was this study peer-reviewed? I'd be interested in seeing this "simple" mathematical analysis that somehow explains away the resistance of the lower floors. And, I'm open-minded enough to entertain the idea that the buildings were so poorly constructed that they offered so little resistance as to allow for near-freefall speed, as highly unlikely as that is.

What gets me is how this article is published WITHOUT any accompanying "proof" (the mathematical analysis referenced) before it will be published in some prestigious journal. Again, peer-reviewed? I doubt it seriously.

[nomo]

[theeKultleeder]

Notice there is no mention of WTC 7. That is the one that creeps me out.

[water]

Its not about the collapse alone either, its about the surrounding facts - FBI found hijackers passports in the street (right), cellphone calls weren't possible from that altitude in airplanes at the time, wreckage inconsistent with the model of airplanes used in the attacks, gold removed from the building early the same morning, WTC7 imploding, wtc buildings' steel wreckage being sold to China immediately.. etc etc etc .. adding all these facts together makes for one hell of a smelly taco... in fact it smells so bad it should erase any benefit of a doubt about CD, or even render the CD argument moot.

[stickdog99]

Why were such a fundamental and critically important topics as how and why the towers collapsed after initiation left to a single British engineer working on his own free time, nomo?

Note the title of this man's paper: Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis. Isn't this topic worthy of a bit more than a simple analysis made by a single engineer?

[nomo]

I'm just gonna post this here and let Hugh hijack the thread with the usual "but it's proven!" nonsense. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

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.