(Updated twice below)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.
Rather than saying that Dr. Seffen's findings
are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanicsthe BBC was reporting that the findings
are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanicsand 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.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:
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.
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.Very interesting, don't you think?
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.
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.Business Weekly ran a piece by Sam Fountain (available as PDF here, and mirrored in HTML here) which rehashed the Cambridge press release, with the following introduction:
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."
Conspiracy theories surrounding the World Trade Centre disaster have been countered by a new mathematical analysis of the phenomenon by a Cambridge University academic.... and so on. I found it interesting how this article reports (in the second paragraph) that the paper has been published, and (one paragraph later) that it hasn't.
Dr Keith Seffen, senior lecturer in the structures group in the Department of Engineering, has published a paper which draws on established engineering models to demonstrate that the collapse sequence of the Twin Towers following the terrorist strike was "quite ordinary and natural."
The report, which is due to be published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, further deflates the speculation that continues to surround the catastrophe, focusing on the seemingly orderly manner in which both of the towers collapsed.
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 livesSeveral 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
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."
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.Another very similar report came from Channel 4 News, UK: Towers built 'to asborb plane impact'
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."
The World Trade Center was designed with an accidental aircraft impact but 9/11 was very different, says a UK engineer.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:
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."
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.A few other articles mentioned Seffen's "paper" in the context of other stories.
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."
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.This article -- like a few of the others I have mentioned -- 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.
"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."
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.And that was it!
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.
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 two articles (one from the Guardian, the other from Business Weekly, which contradicted itself) admitted that the paper hadn't been published, not counting the BBC's piece, which was changed 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.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:
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.
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.Another blogger, writing at 911 Truthiness, was even more direct in "Cambridge Takes on the Truthers".
...
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
~~~
UPDATE 1:
(November 8, 2007): We now have evidence that Dr. Seffen's paper has been written and is scheduled for publication.
WTC 'Collapse' Research Cited In September Is Scheduled To Be Published In February
UPDATE 2:
(November 9, 2007) And now we have the paper
Introducing Keith Seffen's "Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis"