The 
"Signs Of The Times" Editors have posted some sharp comments about this new BBC Tabloid Propaganda Superstar, Dr. 
Keith Seffen .
If the whole show wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious: the BBC has turned into a tabloid!
Here's the whole article with SOTT comments:
Well, an anniversary wouldn't be an anniversary without something a little special to mark the occasion, to let you know that folks are still thinking for you, oops, of you!
Today is no exception, with the BBC kindly sending this reminder of why everything is just great and why we should all go back to sleep.
Demolition theory challengedAn 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.
Above we have a few key words to frame the article for the reader: analysis; study; engineer; and demonstrates. This sets up the expectation that one is reading new and useful information, data to shed light on the Twin Towers collapse from a credible source, Cambridge no less, the renowned MI5 recruiting ground.
But that aside, here at Signs of the Times, we are all for useful data and information, lets see if we can find any...
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
Indeed, lets hope the good Dr. can solve the mystery of how these steel framed buildings collapsed at near free fall speed due to fire when no other buildings have have suffered similar fates after far more extreme blazes. How steel girders were cut cleanly by fires not hot enough to melt them. How molten steel amassed in the rubble and burned on for weeks, of how steel beams were ejected hundreds of feet laterally from the towers.
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
New data? So far lots of words, but nope, no DATA. Maybe that's further on..?
Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York.
At last some information! Sadly this does not help us to better understand the collapse, but useful perhaps only as an emotional anchor point to remind the reader, lest any doubt creep in.
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.
Oh, so "analysis" and "study" are in fact "reviewing television footage". Lets hope they had some good clear shots to work with, with all the pulverized concrete dust clouds in the way.
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").
And completely collapsing at near free fall speed? - Billiard Balls!
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 published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Well, still no data. 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. LOTS of words going on the page here but, still no DATA.
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.
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.
So what then led to the collapse of Building 7, that was not hit by a plane and suffered only minor fires yet still collapsed into its own footprint at free fall speed?
"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.
 |
| ©AFP |
And do the calculations provide any clue as to how each floor's reinforced concrete managed to pulverize itself into dust, erupting like a volcano? Do we find evidence of a stack of 'pancaked' floors at ground zero?
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
A free falling coin dropped from where on the tower? The top, the middle, the point of impact? Where is the DATA? Billiard Balls!
'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.
Apparently the good Dr. is not at all confounded by the miraculous collapse of Building 7. No need to even mention it. What a pity the BBC did not have comments open for this article so that informed readers might put the question.
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.
A "very ordinary thing to happen", aside that is from three steel framed buildings never having collapsed into their own footprint such a way before, ever.
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.
Correction: the similarity between the collapses of all THREE 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.
 |
| ©AP |
Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.
Indeed it may. If he were ever to provide any useful DATA for analysis and peer review that is.
For more information about Dr. Seffen, (including cute photos!) go to the SOTT Forum. See also: UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
4 comments:
"Miraculous! Debris falls faster inside a building than it does free-falling on the outside!". Not really; have you ever thought that maybe the building wasn't collapsing at freefall speeds? explains a lot.
thanks for your informative post of course all of the non informed non scientific will swallow this crap from the media because the guys from cambridge and a doctor
the fact is if he had anything we would be reading it and disecting it not looking at fluff
wimp or as you say accomplice to the cover with his status please publish so the people with brains can counter your assuaging
pose/
expoe 9 11/
When the BBC puts out stuff like this it serves only to expose its complicity in the 9/11 cover-up. Complicity that makes it, just like Keith Seffen, an accessory after the fact in the crime of mass-murder at the WTC on 9/11.
jesus..are you guys for real? without even entering the debate of how the towers came down, you need to understand that the BBC being a media broadcaster, has a duty to report all findings objectively, whether that be something you agree with, or don't. To say they were complicit in the cover up is laughable.
Basic media studies even in High School teaches you the importance of an objective viewpoint, whereby you are undoubtedly going to cause a backlash with some people. The reason for being objective is to provoke debate and then hopefully, by those means, reach a rational conclusion. I do not know enough/anything about the scientific investigation to make a judgement on Dr Keith Seffen's work, and neither would i expect most people unless they had full access to THE SITE ITSELF not just images and video.
So I must say you've missed a rather important but simple point which is unfortunate.
If theories and alternative theories were not reported - as in this case through the BBC - then by all means, I would accept that as a 'reminder of why everything is just great and why we should all go back to sleep.'
Both sides of a story must be heard, whether you agree with it or not. Accusation of Subjectivity against a media outlet is profusely undermining your own arguement
Post a Comment