| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bongo wrote: | 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)
Excellent stuff....and don't forget the massive steel structures thrown hundreds of feet, and impaling facing buildings like giant arrows - the biggest apparently 60,000lbs and thrown 390 feet!! I don't know if you were involved in putting out the booklet listing loads of impossibilities (including the above) as a refutation and challenge to the BBC re their CT hit programme, but it might be worth sending it to Seffen (and the BBC).
_____________________________________________________________
Copy Message to Sent Folder |
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, an update....
I have now E-mailed the ASCE 3 times over the last couple of weeks and have still not received a reply. I have also heard nothing back from Dr Keith Seffen (surprisingly enough  ).
I will keep on trying, but if the paper is not published and I continue to hear nothing back, I will be approaching the press complains commission regarding the BBC story.
Regards,
Bongo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: Just e-mailed... |
|
|
Just sent this e-mail to him:
Attn Dr Keith Seffen,
I understand that Mr Brian McHugh (Mechanical Engineer) and perhaps others have requested that you support your recent hypothesis which has been discussed on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm, and I would like to add my own weight behind this request, as there are many of us who would be very interested in examining your figures.
Of course, it must also be mentioned here that it would appear as if your hypothesis pertains to buildings which have possibly been the subject of hits by aircraft and subsequent fuel induced fires, which, of course, World Trade Centre 7 was not. However, my interpretation of your hypothesis may be in error as I have not examined your figures.
Although I am an accountant by profession, I have studied physics to university level, and am also in my final year with the Open University studying a degree in Mathematics and Computing, so I would study your figures with great interest, as indeed would many in the scientific community whose hypotheses and mathematics seem to be at odds with your own.
I shall be particularly interested in how you have dealt with the loss of mass and energy due to the vast amounts of concrete and other dust created and expelled as the buildings came down. In addition, if the steel supports offered what must have been virtually zero resistance to the floors falling from above, I am very interested in just how you must be explaining why they are not sticking 1,300 feet into the air. Furthermore, I shall be interested in your explanation as to how two of the buildings seemed to collapse from the top down, yet one (WTC7) collapsed from the bottom in a far more conventional way as is usual for buildings the subject of controlled demolitions and which we can see in numerous video clips.
Your early response to the request for your figures would be greatly appreciated.
Well done Bongo, great stuff.
[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice reply mate. 
Perpetually keeping on to these people to explain their alledged scientific backing of the official story will go a long way to getting to the truth. I for one will not back down on this one.
Cheers Spiv.
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiv
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: Chased up... |
|
|
| Still no reply from Seffen, have just sent him a 'chase up' e-mail!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Latest Update,
I have recorded a complaint with the press complaints commission regarding the BBC article...
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
| Quote: | With regards to the following article, I wish to make a complaint regarding the following internet BBC news article…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm
The clause I wish to base the complaint on is the following…
1 Accuracy
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Within this article the second paragraph is worded as follows…
“The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.”
I wish to point out that this comment is entirely misleading and suggests that the BBC accept the above comment as fact, when indeed it is simply a claim made by Dr K Seffen.
Later on in the article, a futher comment is made…
“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.”
This is again written as fact when indeed it is only a claim made by Dr K Seffen.
On the whole, the entire story is reported in an extremely biased and unbalanced manner, which sets out to mislead the reader and it would appear that the BBC agree with Dr K Seffen’s findings rather than simply report his claims. |
and have received receipt of the complaint..
| Quote: | Dear Brian McHugh
Thank you for making your complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the article published in the BBC News Website on the 11/09/2007.
Please note that we require you to supply a copy of the article or articles you are complaining about. You can either do this as an attachment to the email or by providing a link to the article or by sending hard copy in the post to: Press Complaints Commission, Halton House, 20/23 Holborn, London EC1N 2JD. A hard copy should be sent within seven days of raising your complaint.
If you have provided a copy of the article by post, as an attachment or as a link with your email then you will hear from us shortly. If you have not and we do not receive a copy within seven days we will assume you do not wish to pursue the matter further.
If you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us by email at complaints@pcc.org.uk or by telephone 0845 600 2757.
Press Complaints Commission |
... I will keep you updated on any further news as I get it.
regards, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kind of an aside, but there was an interesting story (I can't remember where, exactly, I'll have to hunt it down) that I read recently about how degrees from places like Oxford, MIT, etc., really don't mean nearly as much as some of these experts would have you believe, and that people who earned their PhD's going to much smaller schools have a much better education because their professors are more concerned with teaching and less concerned with tenure.
Wouldn't surprise me terribly.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Latest update...
The Press complaints Commission have responded by letter that the BBC is "A self regulatory organisation"... I kind of knew that anyway, but it was still worthwhile carrying out the exercise as it underlines the fact that the BBC cannot be trusted to be impartial and will always protect it's own agenda... or indeed the agenda of it's governmental controllers.
Also we have another month passed (November) where Dr Keith Seffen's paper has not been published in the ASCE journal.
Very strange that ???
Oh well, I am away now to put in an official complaint to the BBC itself. I will be back shortly to see where that gets us.
Regards, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK complaint submitted...
| Quote: | Dear Sir/Madam,
Regarding the above BBC website story, I would strongly wish to complain with respect to factual inaccuracy in the above story...
Quote: "The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total."
This statement is written as 'fact' and not simply reported as a claim by Dr K Seffen which I believe is a serious breach of editorial guidelines. In addition to this the same breach is repeated further on in the article...
Quote: "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."... Again, this is purely a claim made by Dr K Seffen, yet it is reported as being 'fact' by the BBC.
Also the BBC write...
"After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001.
This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking")."
I wish to point out the factual inaccuracy in this statement by referring you to NIST...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Quote: "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse"
This is available from the NIST website and was published long before the offending BBC article... again 'Factual Inaccuracy'.
Also note that Dr K Seffens paper has still not been published by the ASCE some 2 months after the BBC article being published and the title of his paper is indeed... "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis"
This begs the question on the validity of the 'Analysis' as the BBC report that "Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design."
I would contest that this is a loose statement and ammounts to supposition rather than reporting of the facts when you question whether anyone involved in building design legislation is actually considering his paper.
On the whole the story is loaded, factually inaccuratre and should therefore be retracted by the BBC.
Regards,
Brian McHugh |
Lets wait for the reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete J
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: BBC Complaint |
|
|
Good one Bongo. At least it hasn't gone unchallenged. I also sent this way back in September by email and letter:
FAO (BBC Information Officer Handling Complaint)
BBC Information
Thank you for your prompt reply to my formal complaint submitted through the web site.
Just to clarify, the specific nature of my complaint is this:
As you are no doubt aware, amongst the general chatter and commentary surrounding the events of 9/11, there are several independent researchers who have made serious challenges to the official account.
I am requesting that the BBC report these for what they are, i.e.:
- 'Independent researchers with academic credentials who have made challenges to the official account. Their challenges are based on observational evidence and empirical research which conflicts substantially with the official narrative.'
For example, there now would appear to be categorical evidence (in the public domain) that temperatures inside the building reached levels way in excess of those chemically possible from the plane impacts and fuel fires. Molten metal was known to exist in the rubble pile and iron-rich micro-spheres have now been observed in the dust. (See for example http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillTher miteChemistryWTC).
The words 'conspiracy' or 'theory' do not belong in the reporting of these observations since the researchers do not formally draw political conclusions from their work (even though the implications of these observations raise uncomfortable questions). To be specific, I am referring for example to the work of Prof. Steven E. Jones, and in particular, Kevin Ryan (formerly of Underwriters Laborotories) who was fired for pointing out that the structural steel used in control assessments survived lab-based fire tests without failing and that other mechanisms of failure needed to be looked into. The phrase 'empirical observations' if anything would be more correct.
The BBC does not make it's audience aware that much of this technical debate is genuine and that contributions are made in good faith by experienced professionals with authoritative credentials in their own fields. Instead, BBC News only 'alludes' to them vaguely as 'conspiracy theories' which they are not. On the other hand, BBC News does see fit to cite highly theoretical speculations in a favorable light when they support the official account, such as that of Dr Keith Seffen (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm). Please remember that scientific or engineering theories (specially when assessing a complex physical phenomenon, such as a building collapse, retrospectively) are just that - theories. They absolutely do not (as BBC News states) demonstrate conclusively ''... that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total'.
My own skepticism regarding the official account is based on my background in flying and aeronautical engineering and was aroused by the observation that it's highly unlikely that members of the public are able to get out of their seats, steal an airliner in mid-flight, navigate it over several hundred miles (having no flight experience in airliners) four times over, successfully and without being intercepted. It also seems highly unlikely that the 3 towers collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition without the assistance of explosives and the BBC should at least report that this version has been formally challenged (*without* reference to the phrase 'conspiracy theory').
I'm asking the BBC emphatically, in good faith and as an informed viewer, to cease being so categorical as to the integrity of the account of 9/11 which has been handed to it over the years by government (US and UK) sources. The true nature of this event is far from being clear, largely because information which should be in the public domain has been withheld from the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Pete, Lets keep on at them.
I tried in my complaint to stay within the confines of the BBC's own code of conduct. This story clearly contradicts this code, an interesting read on the following...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/assets/guidelinedo cs/Producersguidelines.pdf
Some quotes from the BBC's own code...
ACCURACY
| Quote: | MISLEADING AUDIENCES
We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact,
or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences.We may need to label
material to avoid doing so. |
IMPARTIALITY AND DIVERSITY OF OPINION
| Quote: | In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:
• we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide
range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time
scale across all of our output. We take particular care when dealing with
political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current
public policy.
• we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and
conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly
unreflected or under represented.
• we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject,
at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial
reasons for doing so.
• we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an
opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not
misrepresent opposing views.They may also require a right of reply.
• we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on
controversial subjects. |
I will not stop going at them until an acceptable conclusion is achieved. They do not have a legal leg to stand on in this case.
Regards,
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete J
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is certainly looking like the BBC's case for running this story is getting weaker by the minute and I am also quite surprised at the ammount of people who have picked up on it.
Thankyou to the WinterPatriot guys for your support in fighting this propaganda.
I do not want to say too much more at the moment until I have a response from the BBC which should be within the next week or so.
Regards,
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete J
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | | I do not want to say too much more at the moment until I have a response from the BBC which should be within the next week or so |
Don't Hold your breath. Here's your reply to save you the wait 
| Quote: |
Dear Mr McHugh
Thank you for your e-mail to BBC Information.
I understand that you wish to complain with respect to factual inaccuracy of the article titled "9/11 'conspiracy' theories challenged by Cambridge research". You also wish to contest that certain assertions in the article amount to supposition and have asked that these be retracted.
I would like to assure you that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thank you, again, for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Tony Bennet
BBC Information
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know Pete, I am fully expecting them to try this as a first step, but if indeed that happens, I am determined to take it to the next step, as this in my opinion is an unsatisfactory outcome to the situation and in no way compensates for their original errors.
Cheers,
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thought I'd copy the original article from the BBC web site.
The date stamp says:
| BBC on Dr Keith Seffen wrote: | | Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 September 2007, 01:45 GMT 02:45 UK |
Was this the original date of publication or just the last update ?
Full article:
| BBC on Dr Keith Seffen wrote: | Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 September 2007, 01:45 GMT 02:45 UK
9/11 demolition theory challenged
South tower of New York's World Trade Center collapses after attacks on 11 September 2001. Image: AP
The study analysed how the twin towers collapsed
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell.
Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York.
After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001.
This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking").
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
Man stands amid rubble of the World Trade Center, AFP/Getty
Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total"
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
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.
'Fair assumption'
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.
The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP
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.
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.
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.
Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design. |
and from Cambridge University, Engineering Department:
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/twin_towers/
| Quote: | University of Cambridge > Engineering Department > News & Features
9/11 "conspiracy" theories challenged by Cambridge research
11 September 2007
World Trade Centre
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
The new paper, by Dr Keith Seffen, uses established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
Although the causes that initiated the collapse of the twin towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.
Some have even dared to suggest that the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings were the result of a conspiracy that extended to the top of government itself.
Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering, was moved to find a scientific explanation for the collapse when he heard about reports of possible insider involvement. Claims of "controlled demolition" were being suggested, in order to explain the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
"I thought immediately that there had to be a rational explanation for why collapse happened as it did, one which draws on engineering principles," he said. "After searching the current literature, it became clear that many studies focused on the phase just before collapse settles in.
"They rightly show that the combination of fire and impact damage severely impaired those parts of the building close to where the aircraft hit to hold the weight of the building above. The top parts were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts."
Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, focuses on calculating the residual capacity of the building to resist the weight of the floors above under collapse conditions.
He then develops a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, which simulates the successive squashing, or "pan-caking" of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified. The process is already well known from other studies of progressive collapse, but usually applies to other structures such as undersea pipelines, rather than buildings.
This allowed Dr Seffen to predict that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited, and once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down - just a little longer than the free-falling of a coin dropped from the top of either tower.
"The aim was to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began," he said.
"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected." |
(Think I've just answered my own question there)
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This Channel 4 piece is also related, you'd be hard pushed to find it as it's filed away under International Politics !
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/ towers+built+to+asborb+plane+impact/788552
| Quote: | International Politics
Towers built 'to asborb plane impact'
Last Modified: 11 Sep 2007
By: Channel 4 News
The World Trade Center was designed with an accidental aircraft impact but 9/11 was very different, says a UK engineer.
A British structural engineer says that mathematics proved the Twin Towers were bound to collapse after each was hit by a fuel-laden airliner travelling at high speed - writes PA.
Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in the structures group at Cambridge University's engineering department, praised the designers of the World Trade Centre for creating buildings which stood up as long as they did after the 9/11 attacks.
'In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural.'
Dr Keith Seffen, Cambridge University
Dr Seffen, who revealed the conclusions of a new scientific analysis on the sixth anniversary of the terrorist atrocity in New York, said the towers were never designed to withstand such "extraordinary impacts".
"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural," he said.
"The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed.
"It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11 were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings.
"The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."
These news feeds are provided by an independent third party and Channel 4 is not responsible or liable to you for the same. |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Latest update... after 16 days, I have still not had a reply from my first complaint. I have re-submitted the complaint today notifying the BBC that they have failed to respond to my first submission within the 10 working days that they state they endeavour to achieve responses by.
... could it possibly be that they are finding valid reasons not to uphold my complaint hard to come by? 
I guess we will find out.
Regards, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 16 DAYS WAITING FOR A BBC REPLY? LUXURY! I wrote to them soon after Callum Douglas's Indian YMCA presentation in June asking about his claim that the makers of 'Conspiracy Files 9/11' had asked the US authorities for the serial numbers of components salvaged from the wreck of F77 B757 at the Pentagon 9/11 to square with Boeing records and "once and for all, debunk the CT's"...and they curtly refused. I think I've said it here before, after several reminders they very rudely wrote and in effect told me they wouldn't be replying again as I was a drain on license fee money! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's very odd.
I didn't realise that the BBC Conspiracy File prog had made that claim.
I asked the question on another thread about this and then found this on 911bogger:
Just found this FOI request to the FBI:
| Quote: |
Posted 10/02/2007 (2nd Oct)
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for documentation confirming the recovery and positive identification of debris from the commercial aircraft allegedly used in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (N334AA, N612UA, N644AA, N591UA), has been denied.
An appeal is pending.
According to the FBI, "the material requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A)."
This subsection reads: "could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." |
More here
So, if the FBI won't release any details under FOI requests, how did auntie get hold of them?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sheriton,
| Quote: | | they (the BBC) very rudely wrote and in effect told me they wouldn't be replying again as I was a drain on license fee money! |
I don't know what they said, but you are the licence payer and if they actually said that quote 'You are a drain on licence fee money', I believe that is a breach of contract on the part of the BBC. The BBC are a self regulating organisation and have a duty to consider all complaints fairly.
However, I don't know what they actually said as you have not quoted them directly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know how to send attachments so this is what they sent me minus my surname
'Dear Mr. HOTEL,
Thank you for your e-mail regarding '9/11:the Conspiracy Files'.
the BBC appreciates the comments you have made and will make sure they are passed on to the relevant departments of the Corporation and to BBC management.However, may I say that whilst this department does its best to answer enquiries and comments regarding specific items in our programmes, we must always be mindful of the limitations of time and resources if we are to apportion an equal measure of service to our whole audience. In brief, we are not always able to respond to lengthy critiques on the same subject arriving regularly from one source.
I am sure you will understand the expenditure to do this can only come from the licence fee and the result is that resources are diverted from the core function of the BBC which is to provide programmes.
We will continue to register any further comments you make. but because of the demands on our time and limited resources, we may not in future be able to acknowledge reciept. I would however like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for your continued interest.
Regards
James Molen
BBC Information'
===============================================
All I asked was did '9/11 Conspiracy Files' ask for the serial numbers of salvaged flight 77 B757 components to square with Boeing records, simple yes or no answerFFS! Anyways I've not had an anawer since this above e-mail from aunty' dated 25 August 2007. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, they have not singled you out specifically, but you could reply with...
| Quote: | | Thank you for your reply. I must repond by stating that I will endeavour to pay my TV licence in future, but because of the demands on my time and limited resources, I may not in future be able to so. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | Well, they have not singled you out specifically, but you could reply with...
| Quote: | | Thank you for your reply. I must repond by stating that I will endeavour to pay my TV licence in future, but because of the demands on my time and limited resources, I may not in future be able to so. |
|
They are hardly likely to worry about that reply.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Someones lacking a sense of humour !!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
