Introducing Keith Seffen's "Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis"

VKMHVM2 · 11-09-2007, 04:09 PM

Introducing Keith Seffen's "Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis"

A few people who read those stories had academic credentials and were able to provoke a response where humble bloggers had failed: the questions they sent to Ross Corotis, the editor of the JEM, were answered, and yesterday I was able to report that Keith Seffen's paper is scheduled to be published in February, 2008 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

If that was good news, this is even better: one of the other people who read those stories had even better credentials, and he went digging in a different place. And you'll never guess what he managed to unearth ... or will you?

VKMHVM2 · 11-11-2007, 08:12 PM

Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless

dadakarma · 11-11-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKMHVM2

Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless

THANK GOD. I read only a part of this last night and thought, WTF??? What do you make of his stuff, personally?

sunflower · 11-11-2007, 08:15 PM

Briefly, looks like he's saying that the top portion of the towers were INTACT when they crushed the rest of the buildings.

VKMHVM2 · 11-11-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

THANK GOD. I read only a part of this last night and thought, WTF??? What do you make of his stuff, personally?

There is a misconception that the 9-11 conspiracy theories all revolve around the collapse of the twin towers, even though it is just a very small part of the unanswered questions surrounding 9-11.

sunflower · 11-11-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VKMHVM2

There is a misconception that the 9-11 conspiracy theories all revolve around the collapse of the twin towers, even though it is just a very small part of the unanswered questions surrounding 9-11.

Precisely. There's so much more that was omitted not only from NIST's "investigation" but from the celebrated and completely pointless 9/11 Commission that most of the public doesn't know about.

And the Able Danger information? That stuff is dynamite, IMO.

brian_wilbanks · 11-12-2007, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunflower

Briefly, looks like he's saying that the top portion of the towers were INTACT when they crushed the rest of the buildings.

Of course they were. But they came apart moments afrer dropping on the section below.

Transfer of momentum is a bitch when you're talking about 10 million pouds.

White Rabbit · 11-12-2007, 05:52 AM

Thank you for your expert analysis, wrong as usual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

Of course they were. But they came apart moments afrer dropping on the section below.

Transfer of momentum is a bitch when you're talking about 10 million pouds.

voodoo · 11-12-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

A frivolous but useful analogue is the inflation of a rubber party balloon: personal experience suggests that a higher lung pressure is required to motivate inflation than that needed to sustain it; and that the latter pressure is approximately constant and steady for a long, uniform balloon, irrespective of the inflated volume before becoming fully inflated.

THAT sounds like something I wrote!

What a dipshit. That is what you call grasping at straws. He might as well have said the big bad wolf huffed and puffed and blew it down.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode