9/11 demolition theory challenged

[Bongo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

...Right, so what about building 7 ???

It is a shame the BBC don't put a 'have your say' on this story !

[eogz]

Speaking not as an engineer....

What a bunch of nonsense!

Where are the figures, this is so speculative!

Case proven?

I think not!

[John White]

[Bongo]

Contact details for Dr Keith A SEFFEN...

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

[Roger the Horse]

I LOVE this bit -

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

Erm... So this debris was falling even quicker than the rest of the building that was, according to the rest of this ridiculous article, falling at practically free fall speed? Fantastic!

[Bongo]

It will be interesting to see if he included the lateral (side ways) movement that the top of the tower underwent at the start of the collapse (as seen above). Because if he did not include for these forces in his calculations then the whole calculation is critically flawed.

It should not be hard to ascertain this upon receipt of his calculation information.

[acrobat74]

[Bongo]

A copy of the E-mail I have sent to Dr Keith Seffen (@ 18:57 on 11/9/2007)...

___________________________________________________________
To: kas14@cam.ac.uk

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: RE: BBC Article
____________________________________________________________
Dear Dr Keith Seffen,

Further to reading the following BBC article... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm,
I have been trying to obtain a copy of your findings which were reported as being published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I am particularly interested in the sources of information used, your methodology of any calculations and any assumptions you may have made.

Could you please provide a link to this information or possibly E-mail me the paper as I cannot locate it on the Journal of Engineering Mechanics website...
http://pubs.asce.org/journals/engineeringmechanics/
You'r assistance would be much appreciated,

Regards

Brian McHugh (Mechanical Engineer)
_____________________________________________________________
Copy Message to Sent Folder

[mr nice]

[Bongo]

I also received an E-mail from Keith Mothersson on Saturday. (8th Sep 07) which outlines a number of Scientists and other VIP's calling for a new investigation. The mainstream media have not covered any of this, however, they cover a paper by a scientist of which I already have doubts about its' credibility (and possibly the BBC's credibility regarding the way Dr Keith Seffen's paper may have been spum due to Roger's very well spotted flaw in the BBC article above) for the reasons of the point I made earlier. However, at this time, this remains to be ascertained once the paper is available.

The E-mail as follows...

[dontbelievethehype1970]

[KP50]

[kbo234]

My email to nice Mr Keith.....


Hi Keith,

I see that you have 'proved' that the total collapse of the South Tower in about 9 seconds is scientifically possible. I really look forward to reading your article.

To me it has always seemed that:

As the collapse was at 'free-fall' speed (near as damn it), all the available P.E. was being converted into K.E. as the tower fell......or did I misunderstand the first law of thermodynamics?

If this is true, and it obviously is.......where did the energy come from to pulverise almost the entire building into to dust before it hit the ground? We all saw this happening didn't we?

Come to that, if the building was pulverised as it fell what constituted the impacting mass that provided the successive 80+ collapses and further pulverisations that took place?

If the whole dust thing was a figment of our collective imaginations and fully rigid real floors fell onto lower floors in a pancake-style collapse how come the Law of Conservation of Momentum forgot to apply itself for this particular 9 seconds of history. Such a collapse could not possibly have taken place at free-fall speed, could it? The collapse would have become successively slower. Estimates I have seen of collapse times applying this universally applicable law vary between 30 and 55 seconds.

Is there some entirely new 'building in a state of shock' principle going on or something? Even if every steel support offered zero resistance to collapse the millisecond it came under the tiniest stress, it is still impossible to see how the 47 massive steel beams that constituted the core of the building were brought down.

Enough already.

It had better be good, Keith.

It would really horrible to see a person make himself an accessory to mass-murder by manufacturing fraudulent bollox designed to assist in the cover-up of a truly evil crime.

[dontbelievethehype1970]

Theres a video which is high up in http://video.google.com which is no 6 in Movers and Shakers.

It is really impressive as it has many, many eye witnessess and news reports detailing that massive explosives were heard.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014

IMHO It Kinda refutes the pancake collapse theory above from the cambridge engineer.

Its called "September 11th Revisited: Were Explosives Used?"

[chek]

Good going chaps.

Be sure to keep us updated about any responses (although, truth be told, I'm not holding my breath).

[Sherlock Holmes]

[eogz]

Speaking as a non engineering type, when you get your responses could you attempt to translate them to English please for us ignorant laymen?

Nice emails, fellas.

[Bongo]

Eogz, No problem, I plan to fully review the content of Dr Keith Seffens' paper from an Engineering viewpoint and if it does not stand up to scrutiny, I will state clearly and simply why this is the case in language that everyone should be able to understand.

And Chek, to be honest, I actually do expect a reply for the simple reason that if he were not to reply and I also cannot gain the report from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, then both Dr Keith Seffen and the BBC have some answering to do.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Seffen: Peer Reviewed Articles and Conference papers

1. K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/publicationsCat.html

A “simple” analysis; and no co-authors!

So why were NIST, with their $20m budget, not able to do this simple analysis?

BBC: The [Simple Analysis] study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

Really!?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Bongo]

Thanks Sherlock, that was simply elementary my dear freind

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Does Callum Douglas know this Dr.Seffen geek? and what has happened to Callum lately??

There's a film called ' Popular mechanics Flying Circus ' just posted on youtube, well worth a shuftee.

[Bongo]

I still have not received a reply, I guess I will have to wait on the article being printed.

This from Cambridge Uni seems to indicate a complex modelling of the collapse was undertaken...
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/twin_towers/

[Sherlock Holmes]

Open University Level 1 course in mathematics, MST121, page four of the students handbook.




I want to create a model that shows... "X", here is my model that shows "X", here are the mathematics that show that "X" can happen in a mathematical model. QED.

[chek]

I came across this extract, which may help put Dr. Seffen's 'work' into some kind of context. Something tells me, in this well-timed anniversary period that, in Steve Colvert's words, he's not in the business of "clouding our emotions with facts".

Somehow I think that rather like clairvoyant BBC WTC7 reporter Jane Standley, the good doctor will be 'too busy' to get back to us.

Ever.

It might be kinda interesting to see how Dr.S's career blossoms for services rendered.

"The BBC has a story today about an engineer from Cambridge who mathematically tested the collapse of the twin towers. That's right. Mathematically. That means he can't be wrong. Take our word for it.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

Sure, I know what you CT'ers are thinking. "Wasn't the pancake theory already discredited by official sources? How was there enough energy to both pulverize the concrete and destroy all the central steel columns in a total collapse? There's not even any evidence that the fires reached temperatures hot enough to heat the steel to the point of failure. In other words, there's no good explanation for how all the perimeter and central support columns failed at exactly the same time, from minimal fire damage."

Two words: horse hockey. This guy's got math. Residual capacity.

I can hear the CT'ers wailing that this guy was paid by the Bush administration to provide bogus evidence. Pretty hard to refute that claim, which is typical of CT'ers tactics. After all, it IS a CONSPIRACY theory.

What are they going to say next? That people actually blackmail scientists? That some scientists have the moral integrity of a jellyfish? That scientists are wrong? Get real. They wouldn't be called scientists if they were wrong. In case you forgot, science tells us what is true, and those scientists who say our commonly accepted theories about reality are wrong are just that -- wrong! Science didn't get where it is today by accepting the kooky theories of maverick thinkers, after all... We're right and we know it. What's not to get?

"But the buildings were brought down by controlled explosions", CT'ers cry.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Not so, asserts the good Doctor Steffen. I believe him. Why don't you? I mean he's a SCIENTIST, gosh darnit! Why WOULDN'T I believe him? I don't even need to read his paper, because it's obviously correct.

The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".

"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.

Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation"

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.

You see, he says it was "very ordinary." That's evidence. Even though the only progressive collapses in the historical record are the WTC buildings, he says they were ordinary. Must be so, then. He's a scientist".

http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/130907Spoof.htm

[xmasdale]

This is my e-mail to Dr Seffen


Dear Dr Seffen

I have read with interest a report of your investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

How do you explain the following:

1 how the heat in a carbon-based fire could have reached the melting point of steel

2 why molten steel was present at ground zero after the collapse

3 why no steel-framed buildings and none of the buildings hit by aircraft, either before or since 9/11, have resulted in similar destruction of the steel framework, shearing beams, trusses and columns. (In each such case the steel framework has remained standing despite damage to other parts of the buildings)

4 why a downward force of floor collapse should have sheared vertical columns

5 why the Saloman Brothers' building, also known as World Trade Center Seven, collapsed in like manner to the twin towers, despite not having been hit by an aircraft

6 how you can describe these three collapses in a unique manner in one day as a "very ordinary thing to happen"?

Yours sincerely

Noel Glynn (Dip Arch)

[xmasdale]

[Bongo]

His paper doesn't seem to have made it into the October issue of the ASCE Journal Of Engineering Mechanics...

http://ascelibrary.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&i d=JENMDT000133000010@webtc.pdf&idtype=tocpdf

[SHERITON HOTEL]

An word about this media psy op? 'Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design'???? I'm not going into one of those skyscrapers till this collapse problem is rectified, THEY ARE DEATHTRAPS!!

[outsider]