Het laden…
Theorie Debunked van de Torens van Cambridge de Universitaire Tweeling
|
|
Dr. Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous
Door Mick Meaney
Alternatief Nieuws RINF
In eind 2007 Britse academisch, Dr. Keith Seffen van de Universiteit van Cambridge, publiceerde nieuw wiskundige analyse van de instorting van het Centrum van de Wereldhandel - nochtans bevat het document verscheidene belachelijke eisen. Nu is een formeel verzoek gemaakt door M.J tot Zwartere MSc IMI, die onlangs het document, aan Dr. debunked. Chris Burgoyne, het Hoofd van de Afdeling die van Techniek bij de Universiteit van Cambridge, deze fouten benadrukt en om het het misleiden te verbeteren document verzoekt.
The request points out that Dr Seffen’s paper defies several key laws of physics, i.e. conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
Mr Blacker’s request also states:
“All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance, when in fact each had different construction characteristics, is beyond any logic as the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.”
Such glaring errors should be an embarrassment to one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious universities.
Dr Seffen’s paper essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity.
Another inaccuracy in the paper is the fact it does not take into account the energy needed to convert the 300,000 tons of concrete and steel to dust.
“The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. What about cross bracing?” states Mr Blacker.
“The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?”
Simply put, for the University of Cambridge to continue supporting this absurd theory is to present a fictional view of physics.
Download the request here in PDF format.
False Flag Science Section has more related reportsHelp keep RINF going..Comment on 'Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked' :
7 Responses to “Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked”
-
Anders Bjorkman
Posted:
Feb 4th, 2008
At 2:50 pm -
Winston Fahrenheit
Posted:
Feb 5th, 2008
At 9:21 pmReplySeffen 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_ -
Joe
Posted:
Feb 6th, 2008
At 2:45 pmReplyI 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? -
Winston Fahrenheit
Posted:
Feb 6th, 2008
At 4:34 pmReplyThe 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
-
W Paul Blakey
Posted:
Feb 6th, 2008
At 9:52 pmReplyRegardless 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.
-
3 year old kid
Posted:
Feb 6th, 2008
At 10:24 pmReply911 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.
-
3 year old kid
Posted:
Feb 6th, 2008
At 11:10 pmReplySee 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.
Related News:
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