Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked劍橋大學的雙塔理論debunked
Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous 博士seffen文件證明可笑
By Mick Meaney由米克meaney
RINF Alternative News rinf另類新聞
In late 2007 a British academic, Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge, published a new在2007年年底英國的學術，博士基思seffen的大學，劍橋大學，出版了一份新的 mathematical analysis數學分析 of the collapse of the World Trade Centre – however the paper contains several ridiculous claims.的崩潰，世界貿易中心-不過，文件包含幾個荒謬的索賠要求。 Now a formal request has been made by Mr JA Blacker MSc IMI, who recently debunked the paper, to Dr. Chris Burgoyne, the Head of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, highlighting these errors and appealing for the misleading paper to be corrected.現在正式請求已議員所提出的司法機構政務長黑色海安IMI的，誰最近debunked的文件，博士克里斯burgoyne ，該部首長工程在劍橋大學，突出了這些錯誤，並呼籲為具誤導性的文件，予以糾正。
The request points out that Dr Seffen’s paper defies several key laws of physics, ie conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.要求指出，博士seffen的文件違抗的幾個關鍵物理定律，即養護勢頭，並節約能源。
Mr Blacker’s request also states:議員黑色的要求，還規定：
“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.” “所有的樓層提供相同的站不住腳的阻力，當事實上，每個有不同的施工特點，是超越任何邏輯低樓為核心的欄目均超過一倍的厚度相比，樓上的” 。
Such glaring errors should be an embarrassment to one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious universities.這種明顯的錯誤，應該是一個尷尬之一，世界上最古老的和最有聲望的大學。
Dr Seffen’s paper essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance.博士seffen的文件基本上是聲稱，一自由落體運動可以減少通過的路徑最阻力。 Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity.這種說法是可笑的和無視所有的邏輯或誠實的科學完整性。
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.另一種不準確的文件是事實，但這並不顧及能源需要轉換三十零點零零萬噸混凝土和鋼的灰塵。
“The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. “ seffen分析的基礎上，欄目作為一個空心方塊建設。 What about cross bracing?” states Mr Blacker.什麼交叉支撐？ “國議員，黑色。
“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. “ seffen文件聲稱，燃燒噴氣燃料在空氣中可以削弱所有鋼樑均勻（對稱，因此崩潰，由於重力的所有列完美） ，但兩邊的這些內，外的大規模柱以外的火區在不同程度上，因此熱隊將進行向上和向下非常有效率地在不同的利率，許多欄目甚至沒有受到任何重大的火災。 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?”我們是否真的預計相信火警可以削弱鋼均勻，儘管核心欄目進行熱效率處於不同的利率遠離不同地區的溫度“ ？
Simply put, for the University of Cambridge to continue supporting this absurd theory is to present a fictional view of physics.簡言之，為大學，劍橋大學繼續支持這個荒謬的理論，是目前一項虛構的看法物理。
Download the request here in PDF format下載的要求，在這裡PDF格式 . 。
See More: 看到更多的： False Flag 虛假國旗 Science 科學Have Your Say: Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked 你說：劍橋大學的雙塔理論debunked
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
15 Responses to “Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked” 15的反應， “劍橋大學雙塔理論debunked ”
Anders Bjorkman 安德斯比約克曼
Posted: Feb 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月4日在下午2時50分| Link to this 鏈接到本Winston Fahrenheit 溫斯頓華氏
Posted: Feb 5th, 2008 at 9:21 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月5日在下午9點21分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Seffen has shown himself to be worthy of the Cambridge MA he proudly lists amongst his qualifications. seffen表明自己是值得劍橋馬，他自豪地名單當中，他的資歷。 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.這個自動馬是頒發給劍橋大學和牛津大學的畢業生，以反映這樣一個事實，即三年的劍橋本科生是更為嚴格的學業成績比一在英國曼徹斯特大學，格拉斯哥，伯明翰，謝菲爾德，布里斯托，南安普敦，利物浦等。
250+ Engineers and hundreds of other Scientists have come forward to state that the official 9/11 story is a gigantic MYTH. 250 +工程師和數以百計的其他科學家們挺身而出，國家的官方9 / 11的故事，是一個龐大的神話。 Not a single Cambridge MA in sight, surprisingly.沒有一個單一的劍橋馬在視線，令人驚訝。 Seffen is a jack ass and his MA is toilet paper, proof here: seffen是傑克驢和馬，他是衛生紙，證明在這裡： http://www.ae911truth.org
and here:並在這裡： http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_ http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_all_Joe 喬
Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 2:45 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月6日在下午2時45分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复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.我想像樓上以上的飛機，就好像一個武術藝術家，另一方面關於罷工的一疊混凝土砌塊。
Why would you think that its striking force could not break all the blocks below it?為什麼你認為它的打擊力量不能打破了所有大廈的下面呢？ Is martial arts impossible to prove mathematically?是武術無法證明數學？Winston Fahrenheit 溫斯頓華氏
Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月6日在下午4時34分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复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.戒嚴藝術家時，遇到的阻力區塊繼續與力量大於背後的力量抵制他的手，從而克服了阻力。
Secondly does the martial artist turn the blocks into power at the same time?其次，是否戒嚴藝術家把塊到權力，在同一時間內？ Does the giant oak turn itself sawdust because of a fire in some of its branches?是否巨人橡樹把本身的木屑，因為一個消防在它的一些分支機構？
You can not extrapolate the model of the martial artist to the collapse of the twin towers.你不能推斷模型戒嚴藝術家的崩潰，雙塔。 Unless of course your name happens to be Seffen or you hold a Cambridge MA.當然，除非您的姓名剛巧是seffen或你持有的劍橋馬。
In this scenario, the underlying steel frame and steel core were designed to resist the mass/load from above.在這種情況下，潛在的鋼框架和鋼的核心目的是為了抵制地下/負載從上面。 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?當您看到樓宇倒塌，在附近的自由落體的速度，像一個蘋果掉下樹，你不問題-那裡的抵抗由核心下面？ When you see the concrete turning to dust in 10 seconds don’t you wonder where did this energy come from?當您看到具體談到粉塵在10秒你不不知道在哪裡，這能量從何而來？ 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?每一樓層或設置的樓層打的結構下面，即使在削弱國家（這不是證明，這是在削弱國家）將有所減弱，有點-怎麼是f reefall崩潰，在1 0秒的解釋呢？
I urge you to *READ* the statements, background and QUALIFICATIONS posted by more than 250 QUALIFIED ENGINEERS:我敦促你*閱讀*報表，背景及資格張貼的250多個合格工程師： http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_ 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:如果您仍信服，並相信有缺陷的武術理論，您有上述建議，我建議你報讀課程，數學或物理在這裡： http://www.open.ac.uk
W Paul Blakey 瓦特保羅blakey
Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月6日在下午9點52分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Regardless of the pancake theory being correct or not, the question should be: what caused Building 7 to collapse in exactly the same manner?不論該煎餅理論是正確的還是沒有，問題應該是：是什麼造成的建設7至崩潰，在完全相同的方式呢？ This has yet to be satisfactorily explained.這還沒有得到令人滿意的解釋。
Let’s stop getting sidetracked here.讓我們停止獲取側這裡。 My wife works in a daycare.我的妻子工程，在一個日托。 When you want to get a three year old to stop doing something you distract them (look at the cuddly bunny).當您想要獲得三年的舊停止做一些你分心，他們（看看在cuddly賓妮巴爾） 。 The same technique is being used to keep people’s attention away from the Pentagon and Building 7.同樣的技術正在被用來保持人們的注意力從五角大樓和建設7 。
Grow up.長大了。 Think for yourself.想為自己。 Question authority.問題的權威。
3 year old kid 3歲的孩子
Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 10:24 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月6日在下午10時24分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复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. 911是一個內就業和感謝的人究竟是誰有動腦筋，揭穿了911劍橋在於作為反對的只是狡猾的評論，我作為一個3歲的孩子很感謝。
Now, were is that Cuddly Bunny?現在，是cuddly Bunny的？
Ahhhh its just fallen through Building 007 at freefall and followed the path of most resistance. ahhhh其剛剛下降，通過建設007在freefall並遵循的道路，大部分阻力。
3 year old kid 3歲的孩子
Posted: Feb 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月6日在下午11時10分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复See the WTC being built here:看到世貿中心正在興建中的位置：
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4744744660064858887
Have to have my milk now all filled with toxic poisons and growth drugs.必須有我的牛奶，現在所有充滿有毒毒藥和生長的藥物。
Joe 喬
Posted: Feb 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月14日在下午10時02分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Ah Yes, Grow up… think for yourself….Question Authority.啊是的，長大了…想為自己… … 。質詢的權力。
But 911 “TRUTH” is the goal, is it not?但911的“真相”是目標，是不是？ I will give another example.我會給另一個例子。
Line up 14 balls on a billiard table each 1″ apart.行了14球，對台球表各1 ： “除了。 Now strike the現在罷工
first ball with the cue ball.第一球與主球。 You will see a chain reaction all the您會看到一個連鎖反應，所有
way to the last ball.到去年球。 Strangely, you do not need to increase your force as you go along?奇怪的是，您不必增加您的力量為你走呢？ Strangely the process does not slow down as it goes along either.很奇怪的過程中並不放緩，由於這是不言而喻沿。I’m not ready to believe EITHER side of this story yet….我不準備相信任何一方的這個故事，然而… … 。
Hmnn… now building 7…. hmnn …現在，建設7 … … 。 THAT is a REAL Puzzle!!!這是一個真正的謎！ :-)
Joe喬
christian 基督教
Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月21日在下午4時59分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Yes, Joe.是的，喬。 But as the first ball strike the second, the first is stopped.但由於罷工的第一球，第二，第一是停止。 And as the second ball strike the third, is is stopped too, and so forth to the 14th ball.作為第二球罷工第三，是停止過，等等至十四球。 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 !最後，能源是從第一至第十四， （當你忽視的能源損失） ，它不是使14球繼續滾動！ If you want to have all 14 balls keep rolling at the same speed, you have to increase the force.如果您想要有所有14個球繼續滾動，在相同的速度，你必須增加力量。
3 year old kid 3歲的孩子
Posted: Feb 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm | 發布時間： 2008年2月21日在下午7點27分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复NOW LET ME SEE IF i HAVE THIS CORRECT,現在讓我看到如果我有這個正確的，
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.有些人認為，一個小型汽車可以運行到後面的一個大巴士，摧毀大型巴士，但小型車停留後，才確定它摧毀了大巴士。
mmmm mm MMMMMM? mmmm毫米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.這正是我們被告知發生於911 ，但發動機的嚴重性，只和小型車是小高層和大巴士是底部完好無損，最強最重的底部的80層。
YET IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LETTER THIS SCIENTIST GUY SENT TO CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOW NO FLOORS AFTER COLLAPSE?但如果你看看實際的信中這位科學家傢伙送往英國劍橋大學您看到的照片顯示，沒有樓層後崩潰？
i now need a nap after that and a change of nappy because I have just had a large dump.我現在需要午睡後和改變尿布，因為我剛才有一個大型排土場。
Joe 喬
Posted: Mar 7th, 2008 at 8:16 pm | 發布時間： 2008年3月7日在下午8時16分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复How many floors were above the planes’s entry point?有多少樓層高於飛機的切入點？
Was the floor just below the planes entry point, designed to是樓僅低於飛機的切入點，設計
handle the weight of the 20+ floors to be dropped from a 10 foot height?處理的重量20 +樓層要下降，從10英尺的高度呢？ The forces involved in this 10ft drop must be enormous?部隊參與了這一十英尺下降，必須巨大？
The term “pancake effect” is misleading.而言， “煎餅效應” ，有誤導之嫌。 I think I remember a term我覺得我記得任期
something like “kinetic energy”?如“動能”呢？A concrete block can easily support the weight of 20 blocks on top of it. 1混凝土砌塊可以輕鬆地支持體重20座再加上它。 But drop those 20 blocks from a few inches away, and see what happens.但下降的那些20塊從幾寸的距離，並看看會發生什麼情況。
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.如果您必須堅持的陰謀…那麼，至少知道，所有你需要做的就是刪除的支持，在地板上被飛機擊中，讓重力做休息。
Joe喬
3 year old kid 3歲的孩子
Posted: Mar 14th, 2008 at 12:30 am | 發布時間： 2008年3月14日在上午12時30分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Once upon a time there were 4 cars in a scrap yard.黃飛鴻的時間有4車，在一個廢料場。 One was a mini, one was an escort, one was a jaguar and one was a big RR.一個是小，一個是護送，一個是捷豹和一個是大的RR 。
The scrap man stacked the three largest cars one on top of the other.廢料堆放男子三個最大的汽車之一，再加上其他。
the big RR first, then the jaguar, and then the escort.大的RR第一，然後美洲虎，然後護送。
As the man went to stack the mini on top, the mini dropped 10 feet onto the three cars below.作為男子到棧小再加上，迷你下降10英尺到三車下面。
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?是否有任何人，誰不是一盛開的偉大ninny會考慮迷你將以往任何時候都粉碎其他三車的灰塵和瓦礫在近freefall速度雖然是屬於通過明確的空氣？
It is just not physically possible Ever, Never.它只是沒有身體上可能以往任何時候都沒有。 Unless you use explosives.除非你使用的炸藥。
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.世貿中心進行了3次工作負荷建成，每個塔，底板被設計經受住3世貿中心塔樓頂部，而不只是1 。
Now please actually read the blooming artice in full - READ IT BOZO!現在請其實讀盛開的文章在充分-讀b ozo！
Intelitary Milligence intelitary milligence
Posted: Mar 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm | 發布時間： 2008年3月14日在下午6時49分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Joe, the application of force is NOT INSTANTANEOUS.喬，應用武力是不能瞬時。
THERE WAS NO WEIGHT TO THE UPPER FLOORS.有沒有重樓上。 The floors impacted individually.地板的影響，個別。 In order to FEEL the force of the upper floors the upper floors had to actually meet the lower floors.在以感覺的力量，樓上的樓上不得不其實滿足的低層。
IT WAS LIKE AN ACCORDION.它像一個手風琴。
It was floor 80 hits floor 79.這是樓80樓79安打。 Both 79 and 80 destroyed.這兩個79和80銷毀。 Floor 81 HAS NOT FELT ANY FORCE NOR APPLIED ANY FORCE. 81樓並沒有感到任何勢力，也不適用於任何武力。
3 year old kid 3歲的孩子
Posted: Mar 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pm | 發布時間： 2008年3月16日在下午11時14分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Take 3 light house bricks, stack them, then drop a heavier larger Accrington brick onto the 3 stacked bricks.採取三輕內務磚，堆棧，然後下降，加重了較大的accrington磚上3疊磚。
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.會有一些損害，也許，但它只不過是不可能較大的磚粉碎3疊磚防灰塵和瓦礫中只用重力。
So if a larger Accrington Brick could not do it - a much lighter brick could not do it either.因此，如果較大的accrington磚不能這樣做-一個打火機磚不能這樣做。 try it for yourself.你可以嘗試一下。
A steel girder structure would be even stronger.一鋼樑結構將更加強大。 We use this type of construction because it is the best strength to weight ratio of any known affordable structure.我們使用這種類型的建築，因為它是最好的實力，重量比任何已知的負擔結構。 We could use Titanium but that would be too expensive.我們可以利用鈦，但會過於昂貴。
On 911 the top bit was the lightest brick.對911位上方是最輕的磚。
The bottom, stronger, heavier 80+ floors were the three stacked bricks, which in reality had a 3 times working load per floor.底部，更強，更重的80 +樓層分別為3個堆放磚頭，這在現實中進行了3次工作負荷百分之樓。
So the bottom floor was designed to hold up three times 109 floors which is 327 floors.因此，底板設計，舉行了3倍， 109層是327的樓層。
The second to top floor was only designed to hold up 3 floors.第二，以頂層設計，只是舉行了3層。
Go to AE911truth.org and see the Evidence including the tech drawings:-去ae911truth.org和看到的證據，包括高科技圖紙： -
I have to go and do some breast feeding now.我去和做一些母乳喂養現在。
Richard Robbins 理查德羅賓斯
Posted: Apr 16th, 2008 at 10:55 am | 發布時間： 2008年4月16日在上午10時55分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复Look, no steel framed building prior to 9/11 has EVER disintegrated to dust at free fall speed when attacked by fire.你看，沒有鋼骨架大樓前9 / 11曾否解體，以粉塵自由落體速度時的攻擊，小心防火。
No building that has displayed all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition has EVER not been a controlled demolition.沒有建設已顯示，所有的特點，控制的拆卸都沒有得到控制的拆卸。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.我的主要困難，與官方的陰謀論是鋼的韌性，這意味著，當加熱緩慢，消防，鋼鐵會慢慢軟化和變形。 There is no logical reason for a sudden catastrophic collapse.是沒有邏輯的理由為突然發生的災難性崩潰。 This suggests a sudden loss of strength rather than the gradual loss of strength we expect from heating.這表明，突然喪失力量，而非逐漸失去力量，我們期望從暖氣。
Even if the steel lost enough strength to ‘fail’ that failure would be DEFORMATION, not a fracture.即使鋼失去了足夠的實力'失敗'的失敗會變形，不斷裂。
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.有沒有現實的機制，為雙塔有突然解體，灰塵以外的其他爆炸物被用來同時斷絕所有的支持欄。
Dr Seffen is seriouly in error here and really should retract his absurd paper.博士seffen是錯誤seriouly在這裡實在應該收回他荒謬的文件。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- 9/11: Irresponsible Science - POP MEC & Dr Seffen 9 / 11 ：不負責任的科學-流行邁克＆博士s effen
- More BBC Deceit: The 9/11 Hoax That Didn’t Quite Work更多的英國廣播公司欺騙： 9 / 11惡作劇，沒有相當的工作
- 9/11 Research Reflects Badly On Cambridge University 9 / 11研究，反映了不良影響劍橋大學
- US Roman Catholic Bishop: 9/11 was inside job美國的羅馬天主教主教： 9 / 11內就業
- 9/11 Theory Destroyed By Unsung Internet Heroes 9 / 11理論摧毀了互聯網的幕後英雄
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Human rights ‘loopholes’ condemned人權'漏洞'譴責
- Government admits ID cards have no business case政府承認的身份證有沒有商業案例
- Ex-officials: Bush admin ignored Iraq corruption前官員：布什政府當局無視伊拉克腐敗
- Massive earthquake in China kills at least 10,000大地震在中國死亡，至少1.0萬
- Weapons Were Not Made In Iran After All武器沒有作出在伊朗，畢竟
- The Culture of Capitalism文化資本主義
- US drops 9/11 ‘hijacker’ charges美國下降9 / 11 '劫持'收費
- UK must pursue war crimes investigations英國必須追求戰爭罪行調查
- Bush Administration Sued for Allowing Use of Pesticides布什政府提起訴訟，讓除害劑的使用
- Heckler at the Back heckler在回
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔
Actually Seffen’s basic assumptions are ludicrious:其實seffen的基本假設是ludicrious ：
(1) the upper block begins to accelerate downwards as a rigid undamaged body with density 0.18 ton/m3, （ 1 ）上游座開始加速向下剛性完好無損的身體與密度0.18 ton/m3 ，
(2) that the initial load imposed onto the structure beneath was exceptionally high and （ 2 ）初步負荷施加到結構的下方是非常高的和
(3) that the damage was bound to propagate. （ 3 ）有關的損害是必然宣傳。
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.上層座主要包括空氣和其密度0.18 ton/m3類似表示，羊毛及它不是僵化。 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!它施加一個非常高的初始負荷是只是一個夢想;它將只是反彈，再加上結構下面，如果沒有損害，甚至會發生！
See看見 http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm