|
Seffen's Folly: Attempted
9/11 Hoax By Cambridge And The BBC Was A Failure
Winter
Patriot Blog
Tuesday November 6, 2007
On September 11, 2007, the BBC ran a piece based on a press
release from the University of Cambridge, "9/11
demolition theory challenged", which described research purportedly
done by senior lecturer Keith Seffen. Nearly two months later,
the world has seen no sign of any such research.
Dr. Seffen, Cambridge and the BBC said, had constructed a mathematical
model of the twin towers of the World Trade Center which showed
that
once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was
destined to be rapid and total.
According to the BBC, Dr. Seffen proceeded from this mathematical
model to describe the destruction of the twin towers as
a "very ordinary thing to happen".
This struck me as very curious thing to say, and triggered a flood
of questions: Where's the paper? Has it been peer-reviewed? What
does it say?
Dr. Seffen's findings, according to the BBC,
are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
The Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) is a publication of
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). And a search of
the ASCE website turned up no mention of a Keith Seffen, nor any
match for any "Seffen" at all.
I wrote a
short piece that day about the BBC News item, pointing out
that no such paper had been published by the JEM, nor indeed by
any publication of the ASCE. Shortly thereafter, the BBC piece
was changed.
(Article continues below)
Rather than saying that Dr. Seffen's findings
are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics
the BBC was reporting that the findings
are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics
and I updated my piece to reflect this change.
Three days later I wrote a
second piece on the subject. This was a longer look at the press
release from Cambridge, and it was much more critical.
Most of the other coverage accorded to Dr. Seffen and his paper
was favorable to his conclusions, and most of it avoided mentioning
that his paper hadn't actually been published.
On the other hand, there wasn't very much coverage.
Keith Seffen In The News
Aside from the BBC, no major news agency was taken in. A Google
News search for "Keith Seffen" returned only 19 matches.
Nothing from the AP, nothing from UPI, nothing in the New
York Times or the Washington
Post, no ABC, no CNN -- not even FOX would touch this one.
But it did see some life in a few unexpected places.
It turned out that the confusion over whether the paper had been
published predated the BBC; it was in the press release from the
University of Cambridge: 9/11
“conspiracy” theories challenged by Cambridge research
The press release was carried in its entirety by PhysOrg
dot com: 9/11
'conspiracy' theories challenged by Cambridge research
In addition, Daily India
and New
Kerala carried what appeared to be a shorter version of the
BBC piece: Cambridge
engineer challenges 9/11 demolition theory (with my emphasis
here and elsewhere):
London, Sept.11: A
Cambridge University engineer has challenged the conspiracy theory
surrounding the 9/11 attacks in the United States. According to
Dr Keith Seffen, once the collapse of the twin towers began, it
was destined to be rapid and total.
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.
One of many conspiracy theories suggests that the buildings came
down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
Dr. Seffen's data says this is not needed to explain the way the
towers fell and claimed the lives of over 2,800 people in New
York.
Dr. Seffen says he 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.
Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.
His findings are published in
the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Anthea Lipsett of Education Guardian dot CO dot UK stuck close to
the press release with "Twin
towers research refutes 9/11 conspiracy theories", but threw
in a few new twists. I reproduce her article in full:
A Cambridge University
academic has shattered conspiracy theories surrounding
the September 11 terrorist attacks that took place in New York
six years ago today with a new mathematical analysis of the collapse
of the World Trade Centre.
Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in Cambridge's engineering department,
used established engineering models to demonstrate that once the
collapse of the twin towers began it was destined to be rapid
and total.
While the causes that initiated the collapse of the towers are
now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the
speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during
the fateful attacks.
Conspiracy theorists claim US government involvement in the catastrophic
events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings.
They suggest "controlled demolition" was the reason behind the
speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapse of both
towers.
But according to Dr Seffen's analysis of engineering principles,
the way the towers collapsed 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," he
said.
"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."
Dr Seffen's research showed many studies focused on the phase
just before collapse begins.
"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," he said.
His new analysis, which will
be published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, calculates the average strength
of a given storey of the building away from the impact area as
it was being squashed flat.
This allowed him to define the "residual capacity" of the building,
which he then used to develop a dynamic model of the collapse
sequence, simulating the successive squashing of individual storeys
based on the residual capacity already identified.
From this, Dr Seffen predicted 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.
This shows that the speed of the collapse as actually occurred
was consistent with a "pancaking" effect caused by the dual impacts
of the planes. As such, the mechanics
of this pancaking process were exactly the same as a controlled
demolition, but starting from the top and moving downwards, he
said.
Very interesting, don't you think?
Cambridge Evening News
ran this item: Lecturer
dismisses twin towers blast theory
CONSPIRACY claims that
explosives brought down the twin towers have been dismissed by
a Cambridge University lecturer.
Dr Keith Seffen says once the collapse of the twin towers began,
it was destined to be rapid and total.
A popular 9/11 conspiracy theory proposes the buildings came down
because of explosives placed inside - much like a "controlled
demolition".
Dr Seffen, a lecturer in engineering and a fellow of Corpus Christi
College, set out to explain why the towers fell as they did. His
findings are reported in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have focused on the initial impacts of the aircraft.
The general conclusions were that damaged parts of the tower were
bound to fall down but it is not clear why the undamaged building
offered little resistance to these falling parts.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate
the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building - 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.
Dr Seffen said: "One thing that confounded engineers was how falling
parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath
bringing the towers down so quickly."
At Business Weekly, a hefty
subsrciption is required for access to the articles. I wish I had
known that when I read it, for I would have saved a copy (just as
I saved a copy of the original version of the BBC piece). The Business
Weekly contribution to the discussion is called "Zero
grounds for Ground Zero conspiracy theory". Google News had
the introduction, whichI reproduce here:
Dr Keith Seffen, senior lecturer in the structures group
in the Department of Engineering, has
published a paper which draws on established engineering
...
Elsewhere in the news, Sam Toy at Building
dot CO dot UK wrote: Twin
Tower designers praised for resilient design:
Structural expert
praises buildings for exceeding shock impact specifications, saving
lives
Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in structures at Cambridge
University, has applauded the designers of the World Trade Center
for creating a building that lasted longer than expected after
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In a new report, Dr Seffen has revealed that the Twin Towers were
never designed to withstand such impacts. He said: “It is widely
acknowledged that the impacts of 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.”
The Towers were designed with the potential for a plane crash
in mind, but not a deliberate one with as much speed and fuel
as was the case on 9/11.
He also commented on the collapse sequence, which has been surrounded
by conspiracy theories. He said: “In all senses, the collapse
sequence was quite ordinary and natural."
Several reports very similar to this were published elsewhere, though
none was credited to Sam Toy. Here's one from the Press
Association: Design
of Twin Towers praised
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.
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.
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."
Another very similar report came from Channel
4 News, UK: Towers
built 'to asborb plane impact'
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.
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."
You may notice that none of these news providers offered any hint
that they were speaking of an unpublished "scientific paper", although
Channel 4 added this wonderful disclaimer:
These news feeds are
provided by an independent third party and Channel 4 is not responsible
or liable to you for the same.
Not liable to you! That's a good one! (And it's my emphasis
in the quoted text, above and below).
Dexigner dot com appears
to have taken the same Sam Toy piece and cut it down to three sentences.
Twin
Tower Designers Praised for Resilient Design
Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in structures at
Cambridge University, has applauded the designers of the World
Trade Center for creating a building that lasted longer than expected
after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In a new report, Dr Seffen has revealed that the Twin Towers were
never designed to withstand such impacts.
He said: "It is widely acknowledged that the impacts of September
11 were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess
of the design capacity for the buildings."
A few other articles mentioned Seffen's "paper" in the context of
other stories.
One such story was published in Zambia's The
Sowetan as "‘World
more dangerous now than on 9/11’" and in The
Mercury, also of Zambia, where the headline read:'World
more dangerous now'. It also appeared in the Inquirer,
of the Phillipines, under the title "World
more dangerous now than on 9/11 -- ex UN army chief "
Here's the relevant excerpt:
[A] British engineering expert praised the designers
of the World Trade Centre for creating buildings which stood up
for as long as they did after being hit by planes.
"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," said Keith Seffen of Cambridge
University.
"The original design of both towers must be praised for standing
as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."
This article not only neglects to mention that Dr. Seffen's paper
remains unpublished; it also just barely hints at any of the controversial
aspects of the paper.
The only other piece published by a Google News site which mentioned
Keith Seffen and his "mathematical analysis" was written by Paul
Craig Roberts. In contrast to all the other articles I've mentioned
above, this one was skeptical of the official story of 9/11, but
it accepted without question the BBC's original report of the paper's
having been published.
The Roberts piece was called "9/11
Explains the Impotence of the Anti-war Movement" and it appeared
at VDARE, as well as IndyBay,
Creators
dot com, Countercurrents
and Online
Journal. The relevant excerpt from that piece is here:
Recognition of the inadequacy of the official account
of the collapse of the twin towers is widespread in the scientific
and technical community. One of the most glaring failures in the
official account is the lack of an explanation of the near free-fall
speed at which the buildings failed once the process began. Some
scientists and engineers have attempted to bolster the official
account with explanations of how this might happen in the absence
of explosives used in controlled demolitions.
One recent example is the work of Cambridge University engineer,
Dr. Keith Seffen, published in
the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and reported by the
BBC on September 11, 2007. Dr. Seffen constructed a mathematical
model that concludes that once initiation of failure had begun,
progressive collapse of the structures would be rapid.
...
September 11 doubters are [...] shouted down as “conspiracy theorists.”
But if the government’s story has to be improved by outside experts
in order to be plausible, then it is not irrational or kooky to
doubt the official explanation.
And that was it!
That was the full extent of the news coverage, and it's not very
broad, considering the importance of the topic; on the other hand
only one single article (from the Guardian)
admitted that the paper hadn't been published, aside from the BBC,
which did so only after the error had been pointed out by a blogger.
Seffen On The Blogs
Many blogs reproduced the BBC piece verbatim without comment; it
seems fair to assume they accepted the BBC's report and saw it as
another nail in the coffin of the "conspiracy theorists".
A few other bloggers actually wrote about the subject; the most
revealing of these was Ed Morrissey of the very popular Captain's
Quarters blog, who wrote: Bad
News For The Truthers
One of the more enduring myths of the 9/11 truther movement
involves the rapid collapse of the Twin Towers after being hit
by the commercial jets six years ago today. The conspiracy theorists
insist that a self-initiated collapse could not have occurred,
and even if it did, it could not have progressed so rapidly. Their
theory has government agents spending two weeks in the building,
planting explosives without disturbing the offices in the building,
and waiting for that special day when a couple of planes hitting
the towers would give them an excuse to demolish them.
Instead, their theories on the
impossibility of collapse just got demolished at Cambridge:
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...
...
Engineers have told us for years that no conspiracy was needed
to explain the collapse. Burning jet fuel created a firestorm
that weakened the steel trusses of the floors above the impact
site, and that led to the collapse of the upper structure onto
the lower portion. That hit with enough force to start a progressive
collapse, which as we saw took almost no time to complete. Dr.
Seffen has now supplied us with the mathematics of the collapse,
answering the silly free-fall argument offered in these forums,
but NIST had already done much of this work before now.
Will this convince the Truthers?
Of course not. People who think that Galileo's great contribution
to science was postulating the world was round have no real affinity
for science or research, but instead for imaginary cabals, innuendo,
and paranoia. The truth is out there -- at Popular Mechanics,
the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and NIST. It's not in Alex
Jones' world.
Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard
posted a piece called "Destined
To Be Rapid And Total" in which he quoted from the BBC's original
version ("The findings are published..."), threw in some material
from Captain's Quarters
and added this coda of his own:
My own opinions on the "truthers" should be pretty
well known by regular readers. There are people in that group
who know full well that they are distorting facts, there are others
who are easily led and there are the outright stupid. (And yes,
that was fully intended to be as insulting as possible.) Collectively,
the entire group wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up
and introduced itself.
...
This analysis won't penetrate
their little fantasy world where they are the brave and
fearless heroes. The unscrupulous, mendacious ones will continue
to make a living off the gullible ones. And they'll trumpet their
echoes back and forth to one another endlessly, jostling for a
place on the melted steely knoll with Rosie.
Another blogger, writing at 911
Truthiness, was even more direct in "Cambridge
Takes on the Truthers".
Here's the relevant excerpt:
The school of Charles
Darwin, Stephen Hawking and some of the worlds top scientist and
engineers has weighed in
why the WTC fell and continued to collapse. As no surprise they
saw nothing to the controlled demolition conspiracy theorist claims.
It’s only enforces what I have always said, the brightest and
the best are NOT the inside job types, that spot is reserved and
rightfully so for the lowlife side of the world. It amazes me
that truthers being made up of the most dim-witted of society
get upset when we laugh at them and point out the obvious lunacy
of what they are selling. It’s like dealing with creationist,
they are dumb and are completely determined to stay ignorant just
so they can keep their well loved fantasy going.
I will be sure to post a link
to the paper when it comes available.
I trust Mr. Truthiness will post that link just as soon as possible.
And while he earns no marks for the abusive tone of his writing,
he does deserve credit for noting -- at least implicitly -- that
the paper had not been published.
Signs
of the Times also noticed this very inconvenient fact:
But hey, why not pay a visit to the Journal of Engineering
Mechanics to read the good Dr's. findings? Here's the link as
posted by the BBC, can you find Dr. Seffen's work? No, neither
can we.
But few others seemed to grasp
the importance of Cambridge and the BBC having falsely claimed that
the paper had been published: we can find further discussion
in this
thread from Rigorous Intuition dot ca and this
thread at Nine Eleven dot co dot uk.
Even now, nearly two months after
the press release, there is still no paper to review, no
indication that it is about to be published, and -- let's be clear
-- no evidence that any such paper
has ever been written.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
