9/11 CONSPIRACY GETS SUPPORT FROM PHYSICISTS' STUDY

[marinegirl]

9/11 CONSPIRACY GETS SUPPORT FROM PHYSICISTS' STUDY

Europhysics magazine report finds Twin Towers brought down by 'controlled demolition'

Published: 08/31/2016 at 10:06 PM

 

 

 Print

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON – For 15 years, there’s been a small band of investigators who have questioned the idea that the Twin Towers in New York City collapsed because of the intense heat and fires raging following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

But they have largely been dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists.

Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude.

The study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries, and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Conscious of the controversial nature of the report Europhysics included an editor’s note with the study in the September 2016 issue: “This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.”

In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on 9/11. It found both the Twin Towers, as well as the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane, all collapsed as a result of fires and intense heat. But even the NIST found that the three buildings were “the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

“It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11,” the researchers write. “Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001?”

The report also concluded: “Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.”

The researchers also found “the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally.”

They noted that “15 years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.”

Here are some of the observations the researchers offered:

• Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67 percent of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C);
• Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
• Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods;
• Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steel-framed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse. In addition to resisting ever-present gravity loads and occasional fires, high-rises must be designed to resist loads generated during other extreme events – in particular, high winds and earthquakes.

The physicists also note the Towers were specifically designed to withstand the impact and destructive force of airliners crashes.

 

They write:” The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 pm on 9/11, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.”

The original investigations did note: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”

On March 2006, the NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

“The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers,” the report says. “Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed. Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources. NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/911-conspiracy-gets-support-from-physicists-study/

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

[straycat19]

Same four crazy crackpots that just banded together because in their world it takes 4 minds to make 1 and even it is crazy.  Add these so-called experts to the list of scam artists you never hire to do anything.  They are almost as bad as the con men that go door to door and want to do home repairs.  There are key words in all their writings that give you a clue to their insanity.  Things like 'fires typically...' trying to further their ideas but then there was nothing typical about this fire, unless they know of a lot of buildings that commercial jets were flown into so that we could see what was typical.  It is also obvious they have never been involved in a large detonation of explosives such as would have to occurred to take those buildings down.  You aren't going to hide that because explosions show a footprint that is identifiable in videos of them.  All the other things they bring up have also been shown to be false years ago by experts in the fields that they claim to be experts in.  But on they go, scamming the other crazy people in this world who will support them for the rest of their crazy lives.

[truemate]

more then decade happen even that laden shot dead.. still they rubbing their asses on this..

grow up morons

[Sylence]

Man it's just one attack...it's not even a terrorist attack...get over it already...pffff 

[ben01]

If you have a good functionning brain, It's 100% clear that it was an inside job. But more and more evidences are always welcome for stubborn / brainwashed people.

[marinegirl]

 

Chair of University Engineering Department: Fire Did NOT Cause Collapse of Third Building on 9/11

Posted on September 11, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog

Today, the Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, a PhD in structural engineering and one of the nation’s top experts in the cause of building collapses (Leroy Hulsey) publicly announced that – contrary to the government’s explanation – fire did NOT bring down World Trade Center building 7 on 9/11

He joins scores of other structural engineers, civil engineers, high-rise architects, and fire experts who say that the government’s story is false … Building 7 was NOT brought down by fire.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/09/61026.html

Seems like the tide is turning...

[Cre8ive]

It's crazy how much superstition there is to any attack.

[marinegirl]

Forensic Structural Engineer Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings and conclusion of his WTC 7 Evaluation study to a panel of attorneys at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 11, 2016. Using finite element modelling, Dr. Hulsey and his team found that the official explanation by NIST for the collapse of WTC 7, which is that ordinary office fires brought the building down, is wrong. When asked by Public Interest Attorney Daniel Sheehan, “On a scale of 1 to 100, what is the possibility that WTC 7 could have collapsed simply because of fires?” Dr. Hulsey replied, “Zero”. He also said that if any of his Ph.D. students had submitted the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 that NIST has given us, he would have failed t

 

 

No foil hats in there....