BBC/Cambridge 9/11 Hoax exposed

[kbo234]

See here:


http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/11/seffens-folly-attempted-911- hoax-by.html

[ian neal]

Good article

Still waiting ..............

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11247&postdays=0&pos torder=asc&start=30

[IanFantom]

I, too, requested information on this from Dr Seffon, but I received no reply:

[spiv]

I have also requested on 12th and 23rd October, sight of his "paper" and calculations, and sent a third e-mail request today. Not even had an acknowledgement from him.

I'm afraid that I am viewing Seffen's claim to be probably fraudulent. The ball is in his court, but he is, in my opinion, bringing the scientific community and Cambridge University into disrepute.

[IanFantom]

And again today:

[Bongo]

Spiv wrote...

[SHERITON HOTEL]

This I think, is related to the thread subject . Something Webster Tarpley said at St.John's church last night made me think, to the effect that steel framed buildings like the twin towers are heat sinks taking heat away from the kerosene and office contents fires heat sources further depleting the alleged heat weakening claimed by Seffen and other official CT-ers.

[spiv]

Sheriton, you are quite right here, steel is a conductor of heat, a fact I've also long argued, and one reason I look forward to Seffen's calculations, assuming they exist, which is looking very unlikely.

But nevertheless, the final incontrovertible proof which completely destroys the arguments of 'fire weakening the steel' (and I don't wish to start the eternal argument on this thread about this, as the thread is about Seffen and the BBC), is the fact that firefighters (and witnesses like William Rodriguez) can testify that they were in the building and lived to tell the tale, so the heat was certainly within human survival ranges. In addition, there is a very famous image on the Internet which shows a person waving from one of the gashes caused by the plane, so refuting the 'fuel fire caused extreme heat' hypothesis.

Now, and rather unfortunately, you won't see that photograph on the BBC propaganda machine, I'll bet on that!!

And as regards Bongo's comment above, can the academics on this site just confirm that the Universities which employ their lecturers be vicariously connected with the claims of their academics? Because, if not, then my belief is that Cambridge will simply 'disconnect' themselves from the claim by Seffen, so getting around the problem, but this 'disconnection' will then just be kept quiet. However, I do believe it is worth pursuing, if only to flush Seffen out of his silence.

[IanFantom]

[IanFantom]

I've got it I've just sent this request:

[Bongo]

Ian, thanks for the contact. In due course I will be contacting Cambridge Uni myself with our concerns.

Regards,

Brian.

[outsider]

[outsider]

[dontbelievethehype1970]

Look forward to reading the paper when it comes out - the BBC
is paid money to educate and inform , not just entertain !

We insist our propoganda be accurately written.

Dont forget to vote for winter patriots blog in weblog awards 2007 - as requested by winter patriot - the blog is currently the leader.

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/11/seffens-folly-attempted-911- hoax-by.html

http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-of-the-top-6751-8750-blogs-1.p hp

[Bongo]

New E-mail sent tonight in order to provide them with the opportunity to respond...

[spiv]

[Wokeman]

"The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed," he said.

This guy is a pathetic apologist and, as a scientist, if he told the truth should be utterly ashamed of himself!

[andyb]

anyone heard from him yet? I think we should get Gordon Ross to chellenge him to a public debate

[spiv]

Haven't heard from him yet, have just written snail mail to the Communications Office at Cambridge University requesting I be sent a copy of Dr Seffen's 'peer reviewed paper'. If and when it is received, I'll be more than happy to pass it to Gordon Ross for his critique.

Of course, it must always be remembered that Dr Seffen may have cracked it and be proved right

[Bongo]

I have been told by the university that it should be no problem to get me a copy of Dr Seffens paper further to it being published. apparently the current situation is that the paper is approved for publishing, but at a time not as yet specified.

[Stefan]

[spiv]

OK Stefan, your point is taken. But let's be very calm, level headed and objective, and take a good look at his paper once it is released to the great unwashed, and once some fine brains have a good look at it.

Although I suspect this paper doesn't even exist, I also do not rule out the possibility that it does, and I also do not rule out the possibility that he may have cracked the explanations as to just how three towers collapsed the way they did, two from the top down and one from the bottom. I myself am doubtful he can explain mathematically, but also do not rule that out either.

[Roadrunner]

This is a really great thread.

[ian neal]

According to an email I received

The subject article is scheduled for the February 2008 issue of the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

[outsider]

[brian]

[spiv]

[brian]

spiv, what I am saying is that if, as we are led to believe, Seffen's paper explains the collapses as possible due to gravity then we can prejudge it.

It will be a paper saying the impossible is possible therefore just another contribution to the disinformation.

[Mark Gobell]

As I understand it the BBC originally reported that it had been published, then changed this to read "will be published".

Entirely possible to pre-judge based on all that we know Brian. Point taken.

I'm guessing here that Spiv, quite rightly, imo, chooses not to.

Very wise.

[brian]

Mark, spiv goes further than that, by saying -

"..I also do not rule out the possibility that he may have cracked the explanations as to just how three towers collapsed the way they did, two from the top down and one from the bottom. I myself am doubtful he can explain mathematically, but also do not rule that out either."

- he is giving credence to the notion that there is a possible gravity collapse scenario explanation. There is not.

It is impossible and we need to be clear on this or those not familiar with evidence may be misled and confused.