18 Responses to “Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked”

1. Anders Bjorkman Posted: Feb 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

   Actually Seffen’s basic assumptions are ludicrious: (1) the upper block begins to accelerate downwards as a rigid undamaged body with density 0.18 ton/m3, (2) that the initial load imposed onto the structure beneath was exceptionally high and (3) that the damage was bound to propagate. The upper block consisted mostly of air and its density 0.18 ton/m3 was similar to that of wool and it was not rigid. That it imposed an exceptionally high initial load is just a dream; it would just have bounced on top of the structure below, where no damage would even occur! See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

2. Winston Fahrenheit Posted: Feb 5th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

   Seffen has shown himself to be worthy of the Cambridge MA he proudly lists amongst his qualifications. This automatic MA is awarded to Cambridge and Oxford graduates to reflect the fact that a 3 year Cambridge undergraduate is more demanding academically than one undertaken at the University of Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Sheffield, Bristol, Southampton, Liverpool etc. 250+ Engineers and hundreds of other Scientists have come forward to state that the official 9/11 story is a gigantic MYTH. Not a single Cambridge MA in sight, surprisingly. Seffen is a jack ass and his MA is toilet paper, proof here: http://www.ae911truth.org and here: http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

3. Joe Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

   I am imagining the upper floors above the plane, to be likened to a martial artists hand about to strike a stack of concrete blocks. Why would you think that its striking force could not break all the blocks below it? Is martial arts impossible to prove mathematically? joeschseven@hotmail.com Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

4. Winston Fahrenheit Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

   The Martial artist when encountering the resistance of the blocks continues with a force greater than the underlying force resisting his hand, thus overcomes resistance. Secondly does the martial artist turn the blocks into power at the same time? Does the giant oak turn itself sawdust because of a fire in some of its branches? You can not extrapolate the model of the martial artist to the collapse of the twin towers. Unless of course your name happens to be Seffen or you hold a Cambridge MA. In this scenario, the underlying steel frame and steel core were designed to resist the mass/load from above. When you see the building collapse at near free fall speed, like an apple falling from a tree don’t you question - where was the resistance from the core below? When you see the concrete turning to dust in 10 seconds don’t you wonder where did this energy come from? Each floor or set of floors hitting the structure below, even in a weakened state (and it’s not proven that it was in a weakened state) would have slowed somewhat - so how is the freefall collapse in 10 seconds explainable? I urge you to *READ* the statements, background and QUALIFICATIONS posted by more than 250 QUALIFIED ENGINEERS: http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_ If you are still unconvinced and believe the flawed martial arts theory you have suggested above, I suggest you enrol in a course of Mathematics or Physics here: http://www.open.ac.uk Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

5. W Paul Blakey Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

   Regardless of the pancake theory being correct or not, the question should be: what caused Building 7 to collapse in exactly the same manner? This has yet to be satisfactorily explained. Let’s stop getting sidetracked here. My wife works in a daycare. When you want to get a three year old to stop doing something you distract them (look at the cuddly bunny). The same technique is being used to keep people’s attention away from the Pentagon and Building 7. Grow up. Think for yourself. Question authority. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

6. 3 year old kid Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

   911 was an inside job and thanks to people who actually have the brains to Debunk the 911 Cambridge lies as opposed to just making sly comments, I as a 3 year old kid am very greatful. Now, were is that Cuddly Bunny? Ahhhh its just fallen through Building 007 at freefall and followed the path of most resistance. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

7. 3 year old kid Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm

   See the WTC being built here: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4744744660064858887 Have to have my milk now all filled with toxic poisons and growth drugs. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

8. Joe Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

   Ah Yes, Grow up… think for yourself….Question Authority. But 911 “TRUTH” is the goal, is it not? I will give another example. Line up 14 balls on a billiard table each 1″ apart. Now strike the first ball with the cue ball. You will see a chain reaction all the way to the last ball. Strangely, you do not need to increase your force as you go along? Strangely the process does not slow down as it goes along either. I’m not ready to believe EITHER side of this story yet…. Hmnn… now building 7…. THAT is a REAL Puzzle!!! :-) Joe Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

9. christian Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm

   Yes, Joe. But as the first ball strike the second, the first is stopped. And as the second ball strike the third, is is stopped too, and so forth to the 14th ball. Finally, the energy is transferred from the first to the 14th, (when you neglect energy loses), it’s not so that the 14 balls keep rolling ! If you want to have all 14 balls keep rolling at the same speed, you have to increase the force. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

10. 3 year old kid Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    NOW LET ME SEE IF i HAVE THIS CORRECT, SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT A SMALL CAR CAN RUN INTO THE BACK OF A LARGE BUS, DESTROY THE LARGE BUS, BUT THE SMALL CAR STAYS OK UNTIL AFTER IT HAS DESTROYED THE LARGE BUS. mmmm mm MMMMMM? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE TOLD HAPPENED ON 911 BUT THE ENGINE WAS GRAVITY ONLY AND THE SMALL CAR WAS THE SMALL TOP AND THE BIG BUS WAS THE BOTTOM UNDAMAGED, STRONGEST HEAVIEST BOTTOM 80 FLOORS. YET IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LETTER THIS SCIENTIST GUY SENT TO CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOW NO FLOORS AFTER COLLAPSE? http://www.rinf.com/multimedia/Cambridge_University_re_seffen_Paper.pdf i now need a nap after that and a change of nappy because I have just had a large dump. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

11. Joe Posted: Mar 7th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    How many floors were above the planes’s entry point? Was the floor just below the planes entry point, designed to handle the weight of the 20+ floors to be dropped from a 10 foot height? The forces involved in this 10ft drop must be enormous? The term “pancake effect” is misleading. I think I remember a term something like “kinetic energy”? A concrete block can easily support the weight of 20 blocks on top of it. But drop those 20 blocks from a few inches away, and see what happens. If you must insist on conspiracy… then at least realize that all you need to do is remove the support on the floor were the planes hit, and let gravity do the rest. Joe Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

12. 3 year old kid Posted: Mar 14th, 2008 at 12:30 am

    Once upon a time there were 4 cars in a scrap yard. One was a mini, one was an escort, one was a jaguar and one was a big RR. The scrap man stacked the three largest cars one on top of the other. the big RR first, then the jaguar, and then the escort. As the man went to stack the mini on top, the mini dropped 10 feet onto the three cars below. Is there anyone who is not a blooming great ninny would ever consider the mini would ever crush the other three cars to dust and rubble at near freefall speed as though it was falling through clear air? It is just not physically possible Ever, Never. Unless you use explosives. The WTC had a 3 times working load built into each tower, the bottom floor was engineered to withstand 3 WTC towers on top, not just 1. Now please actually read the blooming artice in full - READ IT BOZO! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

13. Intelitary Milligence Posted: Mar 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Joe, the application of force is NOT INSTANTANEOUS. THERE WAS NO WEIGHT TO THE UPPER FLOORS. The floors impacted individually. In order to FEEL the force of the upper floors the upper floors had to actually meet the lower floors. IT WAS LIKE AN ACCORDION. It was floor 80 hits floor 79. Both 79 and 80 destroyed. Floor 81 HAS NOT FELT ANY FORCE NOR APPLIED ANY FORCE. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

14. 3 year old kid Posted: Mar 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Take 3 light house bricks, stack them, then drop a heavier larger Accrington brick onto the 3 stacked bricks. There will be some damage perhaps, but it is just not possible for the larger brick to crush the 3 stacked bricks to dust and rubble using only Gravity. So if a larger Accrington Brick could not do it - a much lighter brick could not do it either. try it for yourself. A steel girder structure would be even stronger. We use this type of construction because it is the best strength to weight ratio of any known affordable structure. We could use Titanium but that would be too expensive. On 911 the top bit was the lightest brick. The bottom, stronger, heavier 80+ floors were the three stacked bricks, which in reality had a 3 times working load per floor. So the bottom floor was designed to hold up three times 109 floors which is 327 floors. The second to top floor was only designed to hold up 3 floors. Go to AE911truth.org and see the Evidence including the tech drawings:- http://www.ae911truth.org/ I have to go and do some breast feeding now. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

15. Richard Robbins Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:55 am

    Look, no steel framed building prior to 9/11 has EVER disintegrated to dust at free fall speed when attacked by fire. No building that has displayed all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition has EVER not been a controlled demolition. My primary difficulty with the official conspiracy theory is that steel is ductile which means that when heated slowly by fire, steel will slowly soften and deform. There is no logical reason for a sudden catastrophic collapse. This suggests a sudden loss of strength rather than the gradual loss of strength we expect from heating. Even if the steel lost enough strength to ‘fail’ that failure would be DEFORMATION, not a fracture. There is no realistic mechanism for the twin towers to have suddenly disintegrated to dust other than explosives being used to simultaneously sever all of the supporting columns. Dr Seffen is seriouly in error here and really should retract his absurd paper. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

16. Dr Laston Posted: May 28th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Squibs created by high air presure rushing down twenty floors to blow out windows is not a theory i would subscribe to and was this to be true then each floor would act like an giant kids castle and so delay the speed the building came down at. GW-Bush will be taken to court one day sooner or later Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

17. Scottie T Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    I’m not a physicist so it was difficult for me to understand some of the theory behind the questioning of 9/11, but I felt the 9/11 Truth seemed to have merit in their questions. Today, unfortunately, conspirators have still been preaching while much information has been devoted to proving the conspiracy theory is false. I have read both sides carefully and disagree to the claim that the Twin Towers attack was an inside job. Here are a few reasons: While some of Popular Mechanics methods and analysis are being hotly disputed, it’s conclusions hold much water than any conspiracy theory. And while the conspirators will hold firmly to one aspect of their story, the information that was given by Popular Mechanics on Flight 93 and the Pentagon crash are difficult to debate. Any break down of one aspect of the theory just seems to unravel the entire theory itself. Why it does this brings me to my next reason for not believing the conspiracy… Why? Why would the United States stage a massive attack on its own population? Like I said before, I’m not a physicist, however, I’ve read many historical books and have a degree in economics. So the two theories that have run rampant on the reason for 9/11 are completely false. 1) I’ve read a lot about the shady things are government has done, through arms sales, CIA supportive coup d’etats. In our post-WWII history we have NEVER needed a good reason for going to war. NEVER. We are masterminds at inflaming poorly gathered intelligence to execute our goals. American administrations do it all the time. Reagan invaded Lebanon without having any attack on our soil. And he did it in the name of a “war on terror.” 2) Referring back to when said I studied economics the second point of the “why” question that doesn’t hold water is the theory this is for oil. That makes no sense. Even if we install a new government they sell the oil. It’s not our governments profit, it’s theirs. Saddam never stopped shipment of oil, and our invasion of Iraq has led to 1/3 less oil compared to pre-war levels being shipped out. Not to mention the securing the oil pipelines is an extremely daunting task now. To send the point home, majority of our oil doesn’t even come from the Middle East! It comes from Canada and Mexico! We would we need to be worried about securing 5% of our oil supply? The reason for America’s invasion of Iraq was to create modern friendly democratic regimes, and it will fail to do so. I will end with one last question to the conspiracy theorists. It stems from the principle of Ockham’s razor. The simplest solution is best. Here are two scenarios: A massive involvement of thousands of Americans in the media government and military are knowingly covering up the fact that 2 drones crashed in the WTC and one missile into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were laced with hundreds of explosives to be detonated causing the Towers to fall and kill thousands of civilians. or 19 pissed off Middle Eastern men hijacked four planes. The simplest solution tends to be the correct one. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

18. 3 year old kid Posted: Jul 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Scottie T So 19 Muslim Hyjackers not on any flight manifest, controlled by a known CIA asset who lives in a cave in Afganistan, causes NORAD to not intercept not once but 4 times all on the same day by turning off transponders.LOL. It turns out the BBC have interviewed 7 of these dead suicide hyjackers & two of them still fly for sudi Airlines. Then, 3, not 2, 3 steel fraimed and Reinforced Concrete skyscrapers defy every known law of physics and have the lighter top bits fall through the path of most resistance lower and much heavier bottom 1 square acre , quater of a mile of over 200,000 + tonnes of ridgid building material at almost freefall speed. And guess what, the FBI wanted posters only has Osmar Binladen down as a 911 suspect only. Now, is there anybody who can see a real big fat smelly dump of a lie with the official US Government outragiouse CONSPIRICY THEORY?! Guess what, burning office furnature & jet fuel in air can not weaken 47 massive steel core collumns in less than 2 hours, because the heat would have conducted up and down the massive core collumns faster than it was put in by the office fire, only one way in , but two ways out by conduction, then there is convection and radiation too. And if you were to drop the top 20+ floors through sea water they would take over 20 seconds to fall the 1/4 mile at sea level, how can Solid Building offer less resistance than sea water? ITS just PHYSICALLY IMPOSIBLE!!! Scottie T , would you like to buy a safe sea front apartment in central Bagdad, its only one bomb creater and a few bullet hole but its real cheep and in a good neighbourhood. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this