WTC Demolition theory challenged by Cambridge University engineer

[Laura]

Just thought I'd open a thread to collect data about this guy, Keith Seffen.

Here we find his home page: _http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

Dr Keith A SEFFEN
Structures Group
Personal Home Page

* BA (First Class) Engineering Tripos, University of Cambridge (1993)
* MA, University of Cambridge (1997)
* PhD, University of Cambridge (1997)

Introduction

Dr Seffen is a Lecturer at Cambridge University Engineering Department (CUED). He is a member of the Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Division (Division D). He is also an Official Fellow of Corpus Christi College.
Teaching

Dr Seffen teaches the Part IIB Modules, 4D10 Structural Steelwork and 4D9, Plates and Shells: Theory and Computation, and demonstrates the Part IA Structural Design Course.
Research

Dr Seffen's research considers reconfigurability in structures, for realising novel expeditious properties and functionality; please consult his personal WWW pages for more detail. Dr Seffen is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and the Institute of Maths and its Applications (IMA). He is also a Chartered Mathematician (CMath).
Publications

A full list can be found here on his personal WWW page.
Contact Information

* E-mail: kas14@cam.ac.uk
* Department Address: University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ
* Telephone: +44 1223 7 64137
* Fax: +44 1223 3 32662

Here is his list of publications:

Technical writings: please request if WWW access unavailable

1. K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press
2. F Xu, T Wen, K A Seffen & T J Lu, "Characterization of Thermomechanical Behaviour of Skin Tissue II. Viscoelastic Behaviour", (2007) IAENG (WCE) International Conference of Systems Biology and Bioengineering (ICSBB'07), 2-4 July 2007, London , UK
3. F Xu, T Wen, K A Seffen & T J Lu, "Characterization of Thermomechanical Behaviour of Skin Tissue I. Tensile and Compressive Behaviours", (2007) IAENG (WCE) International Conference of Systems Biology and Bioengineering (ICSBB'07), 2-4 July 2007, London , UK
4. A D Norman, S D Guest & K A Seffen, "Novel Multistable Corrugated Structures", (2007) 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 23-26 April, Hawaii
5. K A Seffen, "Performance of a Coiled Coil Piezoelectric Bimorph", (2007) Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 133(2), pp.486-492, DOI: 10.1016/j.sna.2006.04.016
6. K A Seffen, "Hierarchical Multi-stable Shapes in Mechanical Memory Metal", (2007) Scripta Materilia, 56(5), pp.417-420
7. K A Seffen & R A McMahon, "Thermal Buckling of a Uniform Disk", (2007) International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 49(2), pp.230-238, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2006.08.003
8. K A Seffen, "Morphing Bi-stable Orthotropic Elliptical Shallow Shells", (2007) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A, 463(2077), pp.67-83, DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2006.1750
9. K A Seffen, "Thermal Buckling of a Thin, Uniform Circular Disk: a Comparison of Predictions", (2006) Aeronautical Journal, 110(1112), pp.691-693
10. M P Smith, K A Seffen, R A McMahon & W Skorupa, "Analysis of Wafer Stresses During Millisecond Thermal Processing", (2006) Journal of Applied Physics, 100(6), article no. 63515
11. K A Seffen, "Mechanical Memory Metal: a Novel Material for Developing Morphing Engineering Structures", (2006) Scripta Materialia, 55(4), pp.411-414
12. K A Seffen, SD Guest & AD Norman, "Multistable Structural Member and Method for Forming a Multistable Structural Member", (2006) UK Patent Application 0612558.7
13. M P Smith, K A Seffen, R A McMahon, W Anwand & W Skorupa, "Thermally Induced Deformation and Stresses During Millisecond Flash Lamp Annealing", (2006) Materials Research Society (MRS) Spring Meeting 2, Symposium C, 17-21 April, San Francisco, California, Paper 0912-C04-08
14. M P Smith, R A McMahon, K A Seffen, D Panknin, M Voelskow & W Skorupa, "Thermal and Stress Modelling for the Flash Lamp Crystallisation of Amorphous Silicon Films", (2006) Materials Research Society (MRS) Spring Meeting 2, Symposium A, 17-21 April, San Francisco, California, Paper 0910-A21-15
15. K A Seffen, "Heating of a Uniform Thin Disk by Finite Elements", (2005) Technical Report, CUED/D-STRUC/TR 217
16. S D Waller & K A Seffen, "Shape Optimisation of Cantilevers", (2005) Technical Report, CUED/D-STRUCT/TR 216
17. S D Waller & K A Seffen, "Compression Modelling of Pin-Jointed Trusses", (2005) OPTI2005, 9th International Conference on Computer Aided Optimum Design in Engineering IX, 23-25 May 2005, Skiathos, Greece, pp.165-173
18. K A Seffen & E Toews, "Hyperhelical Actuators: Coils and Coiled Coils", (2004) 12th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference, 19-22 April 2004, Palm Springs, California, Paper 2004-1814
19. K A Seffen, "Bi-stable Concepts for Reconfigurable Structures", (2004) Structures TC Special Session on Concepts for Morphing and Reconfigurable Structures, 45th Structures and Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 19-22 April 2004, Palm Springs, California, Paper 2004-1526
20. K A Seffen, "A Novel Bi-stable Modular Structure", (2003) Technical report, CUED/D-STRUCT/TR 208
21. K A Seffen, "Actuation of Large Displacements by Smart Hyperhelices", (2003) Technical report, CUED/D-STRUCT/TR 206
22. K A Seffen, "Analysis of Transducers for Digital Loudspeakers and Phased Array Antennae", (2003) Classified final technical report for the European Commission under Framework V, contract no. GR1D-CRT99-0121, CUED/D-STRUCT/TR 205
23. K A Seffen, "Analysis of Coiled Piezoelectric Structures", (2002) Proceedings of New Approaches to Structural Mechanics, Shell and Biological Structures, Cambridge, September 2002, Eds S Pellegrino & H R Drew, Kluwer, pp.215-227
24. D H Pearce, K A Seffen & T W Button, "Net Shape Formed Spiral and Helical Piezoelectric Actuators", (2002) Journal of Materials Science, 37, pp.3117-3122
25. K A Seffen & M Aleyaasin, "Analysis of Transducers for Digital Loudspeakers and Phased Array Antennae", (2002) Classified two-yearly technical report for the European Commission under Framework V, contract no. GR1D-CRT99-0121, CUED/D-STRUCT/TR 200
26. K A Seffen & D J Butler, "An Exercise in Elementary Smart Structures", (2002) International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 30(1), pp.59-72
27. K A Seffen, G T Parks & P J Clarkson, "Observations on the Controllability of Motion of Two-Wheelers", (2001) Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Systems and Control Engineering, 215, pp.143-156
28. K A Seffen, "On the Behaviour of Folded Tape-Springs", (2001) Journal of Applied Mechanics, Trans. ASME, 68, pp.369-375
29. K A Seffen, "Through-Thickness Effects in Curved Piezoelectric Beams", (2001) Technical report, UMIST/ME/AM/14.05.01/CURV1
30. K A Seffen, "Analysis of Transducers for Digital Loudspeakers and Phased Array Antennae", (2001) Classified 12-monthly technical report for the European Commission under Framework V, contract no. GR1D-CRT99-0121, UMIST/ME/AM/09.05.01/PADS2
31. A Suppapitnarm, K A Seffen, G T Parks & P J Clarkson, "A Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimisation", (2000) Engineering Optimisation, 33(1), pp.59-85
32. K A Seffen, Z You & S Pellegrino, "Folding and Deployment of Curved Springs", (2000) International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 42, pp.2055-2073
33. K A Seffen, "Analysis of Transducers for Digital Loudspeakers and Phased Array Antennae", (2000) Classified six-monthly technical report for the European Commission under Framework V, contract no. GR1D-CRT99-0121, UMIST/ME/AM/16.11.00/PADS1
34. K A Seffen, S Pellegrino & G T Parks, "Deployment of a Panel by Tape-Spring Hinges", (2000) Proceedings of IUTAM-IASS Symposium on Deployable Structures: Theory and Applications, Cambridge, September 1998, Eds S Pellegrino and S D Guest, Kluwer, pp.355-364
35. K A Seffen, "Analysis of a Smart, Linear, Piezoelectric Transducer", (2000) Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical and Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) 7th Annual International Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, Newport Beach, Calif., March 2000, Ed. N. Wereley, 3985, pp.660-671
36. A Suppapitnarm, K A Seffen, G T Parks & P J Clarkson, "Design by Multiobjective Optimisation Using Simulated Annealing", (1999) International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED'99), Munich, August 1999, Ed. V. Lindemann, H. Birkhofer, H. Meerkamm, S. Vanja, pp.1395-1400, Publ. Technische Universitat Munchen
37. P J Clarkson, K A Seffen, G T Parks, A Hooley & W S Bainbridge, "Observations on Virtual Collaborative Design", (1999) International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED'99), Munich, August 1999, Ed. V. Lindemann, H. Birkhofer, H. Meerkamm, S. Vanja, pp.1837-1840
38. A Suppapitnarm, K A Seffen, G T Parks, A M Connor & P J Clarkson, "Multobjective Optimisation of Bicycle Frames Using Simulated Annealing", (1999) Proceedings of 1st ASMO/ISSMO Conference on Engineering Design Optimization, Ilkley, July 1999, Ed. V.V. Toporov, pp.357-364
39. A M Connor, K A Seffen, G T Parks & P J Clarkson, "Efficient Optimisation of Structures Using Tabu Search", (1999) Proceedings of 1st ASMO/ISSMO Conference on Engineering Design Optimization, Ilkley, July 1999, Ed. V.V. Toporov, pp.127-134
40. K A Seffen, "Bicycle-Rider Dynamics; Equations of Motion and Controllability", (1999) Joint technical report: UMIST/ME/AM/15.07.99/CUED; Cambridge University Engineering Department CUED/C-EDC/TR 79
41. K A Seffen & S Pellegrino, "Deployment Dynamics of Tape-Springs", (1999) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A, 455(1983), pp.1003-1048
42. K A Seffen, Z You & S Pellegrino, "Folding and Deployment of Curved Tape-Springs", (1997) Technical report, CUED/D-STRUCT/TR 171
43. K A Seffen, "Analysis of Structures Deployed by Tape-Springs", (1997) Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge
44. K A Seffen & S Pellegrino, "Deployment of a Rigid Panel by Tape-Springs", (1997) Technical report, CUED/D-STRUCT/TR 168
45. K A Seffen & S Pellegrino, "Deployment Dynamics of Strip Springs", (1996) Proceedings of 19th International Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Kyoto, August 1996 (abstract)
46. K A Seffen & S Pellegrino, "Deployment Dynamics of Elastic Folds in Transversely Thin Curved Strips", (1995) Proceedings of Symposium on Instabilities in Solids and Structures, UCLA, June 1995 (abstract)
47. K A Seffen, "Unconstrained Deployment of a Collapsible Membrane Reflector", (1994) First Year PhD Report, University of Cambridge

Reviews and press releases

1. Evolutionary Structural Optimization by Y M Xie & G P Steven, (2000) Engineering Structures, 22(9), pp.1224-1225
2. An Engineer's Guide to Pipe Joints by G Thompson, (2001) International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 29(3), pp.280
3. Araldite Gets Human Powered Vehicle on the Road, 23 Jan 2001, VANTICO
4. Students Show 'Wheel' Class in Great Design Challenge Race, 04 April 2001, Manchester Evening News
5. Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students by T H G Megson, (2002) International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 30(1), pp.90
6. Roll-up Lap-Top Screens for Truly Portable Computing, 11 September 2006, CUED News Item

Mentored student theses

1. A A Jalil, "Semi-Fractal Element Analysis", (2000) MSc, UMIST, Manchester
2. S Veerapun, "Smart Structures and Analysis For Micro-Air-Vehicle Design", (2000) MSc, UMIST, Manchester
3. L O Onyango, "Mechanical Systems Dynamic Instabilities", (2001) MDipl, UMIST, Manchester
4. E Toews, "Analysis Methods for Adaptive Structures", (2002) MPhil, University of Cambridge. Runner-up at the Institute of Structural Engineers Young Researchers Conference 2003
5. S D Waller, "Shape Optimisation of Cantilevers", (2003) First Year PhD Report, University of Cambridge
6. I T Kisby, "Lightweight Geodesic Columns", (2004) MEng, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge
7. H R Middleton, "Multi-stable Structures", (2004) MEng, Downing College, University of Cambridge
8. A J Butler, "Acrosomal Reaction Mechanics", (2005) MEng, Girton College, University of Cambridge
9. E Crane, "Multi-stable Shells", (2005) MEng, Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge
10. T O M Evans, "Multi-stable Modular Grids", (2005) MEng, Magdalene College, University of Cambridge
11. L H Watson, "Energy Harvesting", (2005) MEng, Pembroke College, University of Cambridge
12. T J Worgan, "Morphing Aircraft Wings", (2005) MEng, Downing College, University of Cambridge
13. S D Waller, "Mechanics of Novel Compression Structures", (2006) PhD, Jesus College, University of Cambridge

Research seminars and invited lectures

1. First Year PhD Report, Structures Group, Cambridge University Engineering Department (Nov 1994)
2. Symposium on Instabilities in Solids and Structures, UCLA (Jun 1995)
3. PhD Thesis, Structures Group, Cambridge University Engineering Department (Dec 1997)
4. Engineering Design Centre, Cambridge University Engineering Department (Mar 1999)
5. SPIE Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials, Newport Beach, California (Mar 2000)
6. Structures Group, Cambridge University Engineering Department (Mar 2001)
7. 1...Ltd, St John's Innovation Centre, Cambridge (Mar 2002, Jul 2001, Jan 2001, Sep 2000, Apr 2000)
8. Calladine Festschrift on New Approaches to Structural Mechanics, Shells and Biological Structures, Cambridge (Sep 2002)
9. The Perse School: Design of Model Cranes Using K'nex, Cambridge (Dec 2002)
10. Victoria College, Belfast: Master Class in Engineering (Mar 2003)
11. Friends' School, Lisburn, and Lumen Christi College, Londonderry: Master Class in Engineering (Mar 2004)
12. 12th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference, Palm Springs, California (April 2004)
13. 45th Structures and Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, California (April 2004)
14. Structures Group, Cambridge University Engineering Department (March 2005)
15. St Mary's Grammar School, Magherafelt: Master Class in Engineering (Apr 2005)
16. Department of Engineering, Aberdeen University (Apr 2007)

# Department Address: University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CM2 1PZ
# kas14@cam.ac.uk

 

[Laura]

Article about one of Seffen's ideas/inventions:
_http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060923120830.htm

Roll-up Laptop Screens? New 'Morphing' Structures Have Many Applications

Science Daily — Scientists at the University of Cambridge have developed a range of unique, shape-changing structures, which can be used as roll-up display screens (such as laptop screens), re-usable packaging, roll-up keyboards and self-erecting, temporary habitats.

These structures, also known as 'morphing' structures, afford multiple configurations without the need of complex parts or sophisticated manufacturing. Dr Keith Seffen, from the Department of Engineering, has developed the structures and is currently exploring various applications for their ingenious behaviour with co-worker Dr Simon Guest and graduate student Alex Norman.

Dr Seffen said, "They offer substantial shape-changing capabilities whilst preserving structural integrity. They are simply made and their operation does not rely upon advanced materials. They afford compact, inexpensive solutions for multifunctional devices, which are required to be lightweight, stiff, but foldable on demand."

By using an ordinary sheet of metal, Dr Seffen can produce structures with no moving parts but which can be configured between at least two distinct, self-locking and stable forms. For example, an A5-sized flat screen can be snapped into the shape of a tube for compact carriage in a briefcase or pocket (please see attached photo).

The operation does not require hinges, latches or locks, and without these extra parts, production times and costs are reduced compared to traditional folding structures.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Cambridge.

This was on the net here:
_http://gift.kisti.re.kr/techtrend/download.jsp?sno=167785&down_url=/upload/sjlee430/Morphing.doc

Dr Keith Seffen, a lecturer in the Structures Group, University of Cambridge, has developed a range of unique solid structures that can change shape. Known as "morphing" structures they can be used to produce many different configurations but without the need of complex parts or sophisticated manufacture.

Along with his co-workers, Dr Simon Guest and graduate student, Alex Norman, they are working on a range of applications, including re-usable packing, roll-up keyboards, and thin flexible displays for truly portable computing: a "mock-up" and its operation are shown in the photos, where an A5-sized flat screen snaps into a tube for compact carriage in a briefcase or pocket. Keith considers the performance of structures from multiple viewpoints, in particular how to retain strength and stiffness while permitting large changes in shape.

Typically, civil engineering structures are designed to be strong (safe) and stiff (immovable); when they are not, the consequences can be disastrous. Writing in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A (DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2006.1750), he describes a class of structures that behave normally under the usual operating conditions, but when the demands upon them increase, their response softens in a prescribed manner, permitting large yet safe departures from the original shape before becoming stiff and self-locking in a new configuration.

Such behaviour is governed by the choice of material and initial shape of structure, and Keith combines these influences in a systematic manner for the first time, yielding the conditions required for morphing behaviour in a wide range of structures.

Assisted by Cambridge Enterprise, Keith and his team have filed a patent on the manufacture and operation of their morphing devices, and are actively seeking industrial collaboration for future development.

Gee, maybe he thinks the WTC was constructed of his morphing metals??? THAT would explain it!

 

[Laura]

Ooops... found another homepage for the guy! He really looks serious!

Keith A. Seffen MA PhD CMath MIMA MAIAA
University Lecturer in Engineering
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
T: +44 (0) 1223 7 64137
F: +44 (0) 1223 3 32662
E: kas14@cam.ac.uk

Dr Seffen has general interests in reconfigurable structures, as described in his research page; other pages can be reached from the navigator list on the left - clicking on "home" restores this page. Please feel free to contact him by 'phone or E-mail or in person.

 

[Laura]

Interesting analysis:

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/uk-engineer-wtc-collapses-were-very.html

UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

(UPDATED BELOW)

The BBC is reporting on an "analysis" by Dr. Keith Seffen, a "UK engineer" which "demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total."

According to this analysis, the official story of the buildings' collapse amounts to "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.

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.

Questions leap to mind: Is it really a very ordinary thing? Has the paper been peer-reviewed? How much sense does the paper make? And where is it?

The BBC report says:

The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

and the BBC page links to the Journal's website.

But a search of the site provides no evidence of any such report, nor any indication that the author, Dr. Keith Seffen, has ever published anything there at all.

And a Google search for "Keith Seffen" and "WTC" finds no relevant matches, just the BBC article and a diary at Daily Kos which calls Dr. Seffen's study "proof", even though the study -- not to mention the "proof" -- is nowhere to be found.

Draw your own conclusions.

UPDATE: The BBC report to which I linked above has been changed.

Where it once said:

The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

It now says:

The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

A verbatim copy of the prior version can be found here. Another copy appears at the bottom of this page.

Labels: 9/11, manure

Notice that the version SOTT published (copy/pasted) says "The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics." And, sure enough, the story on BBC site NOW says: "The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics."

 

[Laura]

Here's a totally barfitous piece from Channel 4:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/towers+built+to+asborb+plane+impact/788552

Towers built 'to asborb plane impact'

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.

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.

 

[dantem]

Some copy&paste here.

Probable mathematical counter-case:

_http://z9.invisionfree(dot)com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=13&t=8979

Energy. It is all about energy. All they have to work with is the potential energy of the upper floors being drawn downward by gravity. So far as I can tell from this brief overview, all this particular person is doing is showing that the potential energy of the mass above the impact zone was sufficient, cumulatively, to take the entire structure down in 9+ seconds.

I find that very doubtful on the face of it but have to ask the question -- was the energy cumulative? All video evidence indicates that it was not. We see enormous amounts of energy being expended in the first fractions of a second as material is turned into fine dust and ejected; we see steel beams being ejected laterally -- thus not only being examples of energy expended but their potential cumulative energy lost. If this engineer did not build these (and other) energy expenditures into his equation, then his equation, no matter how correct mathematically and theoretically, is factually false because it would not accurately describe the events observed. Moreover, it isn't going to answer the question of what was the source of the heat energy which continued to radiate outward from below ground level for weeks after the event. Steel does not compost.

Then, an update on the BBC article:

_http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/

UPDATE: The BBC report to which I linked above has been changed.

Where it once said:

The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

It now says:

The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

A verbatim copy of the prior version can be found here. Another copy appears at the bottom of this page.

The page on today's Sott is the old one.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Here's a totally barfitous piece from Channel 4:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/towers+built+to+asborb+plane+impact/788552

Towers built 'to asborb plane impact'

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.

Typical shoddy journalism. While we can't know for sure, because the paper has yet to be published, the original article stated something quite different. Seffen merely showed that IF there was a failure at the point of impact, the building would have given no resistance to the falling top portion of the building. While other researchers have shown this to be absurd in itself, it does not PROVE anything. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that the fires reached temperatures high enough to heat the metal to a point of failure. Even then, if some of the columns DID reach that temperature, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to all have collapsed at the SAME time. The original failure would have been asymmetrical, leading to an asymmetrical collapse.

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.

This is just incorrect. The 707s for which the WTC was designed WERE bigger, but they also travel FASTER than 767s (which hit the towers). In fact, the kinetic energy released by a 707 would be MORE than a 767 (according to Jim Hoffman, who besides being dead wrong about the Pentagon, has written some good analysis on the WTC). The WTC were designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts by jets with fully loaded fuel tanks, according to Skilling, the structural designer of the towers, so the above is simply a lie.

"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.

Disgusting.

 

[Darren]

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.

This is just incorrect. The 707s for which the WTC was designed WERE bigger, but they also travel FASTER than 767s (which hit the towers). In fact, the kinetic energy released by a 707 would be MORE than a 767 (according to Jim Hoffman, who besides being dead wrong about the Pentagon, has written some good analysis on the WTC). The WTC were designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts by jets with fully loaded fuel tanks, according to Skilling, the structural designer of the towers, so the above is simply a lie.

Yes. Frank A DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, also said the buildings were designed to withstand a fully loaded Boeing 707:

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Being picky about the aircraft sizes; a 707 isn't bigger than a 767, but there's not much in it, fwiw.

 

[Hildegarda]

FWIW, here is my husband's take on this -- he is an engineer by background, with years of experience, and his master thesis was on thermal stress and heat transfer. He says that kinetic energy of the plane has nothing to do with the collapse. The collapse has to do with thermal stress and there are two thing that may have been going on.

The first concerns the vertical steel support columns: the heat from the airplane explosion wouldn't be enough to melt them, but it could plastically deform them, cause thermal stress and cause them to bend. AS they are bending, the floors would separate from the column and fall like pancakes.

The second concerns the steel floor supports that hold the floors on the support columns. The heat form the plane would cause these supports to melt and fail (they are relatively much smaller), and than there's nothing holding the floors on anymore -- as one goes down, they would then all collapse in a pancake-like fashion ('pancake collapse' is a standard term).

He thinks the second scenario is more likely.

Even if the building did fail on its own, that doesn't solve all the other numerous issues with the 911 tragedy: how some people knew about it in advance, power failures in the building in the days prior to the tragedy, the amazing skills of the kamikadze pilots etc. But -- throw in a regurgitation of an article from a mainstream scientist into the media, and you can create the illusion of sweeping all those other issues away, and painting all those conspiracists as loonies yet again.

This also doesn't take away the thermate residues found in the WTC dust by Steven Jones:

\\\http://stopthelie.com/the_evidence_is_in.html

there is nothing like speeding up the natural process of pancake-like collapse with substances that help the steel melt and burn -- just in case something doesn't go as planned, you know. But of course you have to place those substances in in advance, so somebody must have known something.

Now, Building 7 WAS taken down by controlled demolition. Here is the building owner Larry Silverstein, on record, saying exactly that ('we pulled it'):


\\\http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcqSy_UsXs

there was a pretty nice insurance settlement for him, with millions of dollars in profit. But, you don't just 'pill' the building without any preparations, you got to put the explosives in. So, again, someone knew something ahead of time. WE are back to the square one, never mind what the scientist said.

 

[anart]

FWIW, here is my husband's take on this -- he is an engineer by background, with years of experience, and his master thesis was on thermal stress and heat transfer. He says that kinetic energy of the plane has nothing to do with the collapse.

I have an engineering background as well - and, yes, this is evident.

The collapse has to do with thermal stress and there are two thing that may have been going on.
The first concerns the vertical steel support columns: the heat from the airplane explosion wouldn't be enough to melt them, but it could plastically deform them, cause thermal stress and cause them to bend. AS they are bending, the floors would separate from the column and fall like pancakes.

There are two problems with this - perhaps you could ask him about the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the temperature inside the structure ever reached anywhere near the level necessary to plastically deform the support columns, much less in a uniform way that would predispose the structure to fall the way it did - had they 'bent' (indicating veering off of center), their coming down into their own footprints would have been miraculous, once; twice, it is impossible.

The isolated fires inside the structure were simply not that intense, from all available evidence. The second problem that seems to pop up with this statement is that, even if the floors separated and 'pancaked' - there is no way in this physical universe that they would have fallen at very near 'free fall' speed. Perhaps you could ask him his take on that?

The second concerns the steel floor supports that hold the floors on the support columns. The heat form the plane would cause these supports to melt and fail (they are relatively much smaller), and than there's nothing holding the floors on anymore -- as one goes down, they would then all collapse in a pancake-like fashion ('pancake collapse' is a standard term).

Again, no disrespect, but for this scenario to be viable, the heat would have had to uniformly melted the 'supports' - at least to my understanding. There is no evidence of such uniform intense heat. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the heat may have been intense for a very short period of time in a very, relatively, small area of the structure. Without uniformity, the structure would have collapsed asymmetrically and taken down surrounding buildings.

This did not happen in a vacuum - had either tower been even several inches off center at the top, when it started to fall, it would not have fallen into it's own footprint. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something about your husband's interpretation?

 

[JGeropoulas]

I recall reading an article (_http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm) that stated one of the simplest evidences--that even a patriotically-blinded moron could see--against the "pancake" theory: there has been established a ratio for a collapsed building to its original height. The ratio stated was 33% (excluding, of course, collapses due to nuclear bunker-busting bombs aimed upward, which would pulverize concrete and vaporize steel into near-atomic size particles, as were found in record levels after the 9/11).

So regarding the "Twin Tower Pancakes" (pure genius over at IHOP yesterday! What better way to commemorate 9/11 than cramming their pancake special down people's throats until they choke--and then making them pay! ;)]...using this 33% ratio, the 1000-foot Twin Towers should have "pancaked" into a 333-foot pile of rubble. But the Trade Towers collapsed into a 100-foot pile.

[addendum if published for the general public: "And scientists have confirmed that 100 feet is less than 250 feet, so the official story about 9/11 is a bunch of crap."]

 

[Hildegarda]

There are two problems with this - perhaps you could ask him about the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the temperature inside the structure ever reached anywhere near the level necessary to plastically deform the support columns

Yes, he didn't think this was likely basing solely on the time it took: that takes a long time, and other things would have failed first. With the temperature data it makes even more sense.

Again, no disrespect, but for this scenario to be viable, the heat would have had to uniformly melted the 'supports' - at least to my understanding. There is no evidence of such uniform intense heat. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the heat may have been intense for a very short period of time in a very, relatively, small area of the structure. Without uniformity, the structure would have collapsed asymmetrically and taken down surrounding buildings.

I have used an inaccurate word. Not 'melted', but deformed due to thermal stress. Thermal stress occurs precisely because things are not uniformly heated. If they were and the temperature were high enough to melt steel, it all would have just melted. 600-700 C isn't enough to melt steel, but it is enough to cause thermal expansion, and that cause stress and failure.

Floors in the WTC consisted of lightweight concrete slabs poured onto steel pans, which were supported by beams = trusses. THose were connected to outside columns and inner core via welding and bolts (\\http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html). Welding areas are already areas of high stress. As one pops others would pop too due to added thermal stress + extra weight. This doesn't have to happen simultaneously.


Turns out his theory has a name -- it is a 'truss failure' theory, promoted originally by an MIT researcher.
\\\http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html
\\\http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html

There is a number of uncertainties with it, although the problems that the 911research site pointed out aren't some of those:

1) "imagine that all the trusses of a floor failed in rapid succession and the whole floor fell. Then what? It would fall down about ten feet, then come to rest on the floor below, which was designed to support at least five times the weight of both floors, the fall cushioned by the folding of the trusses beneath the upper floor." -- no, transient loads are of much greater impact

2) "and floors kept falling. Then what? The floor diaphragms would have slid down around the core like records on a spindle, leaving both the core and perimeter wall standing." -- no, the columns are held together to a lage extent by tension forces from the floors that they support; + the vertical columns don't go all the way up from the ground level in one piece, the whole thing is modular = they could crumble as well.

The issue that the truss failure theory omits is that the WTC structure had an inner core, too. So the outer floor was attached to outside columns and the inside columns; and inside the inner core there were their own floors for each level. The FEMA-endorsed drawing for the truss failure theory for some reason doesn't show that, it shows the floor as a pancake stick within the grid of vertical outer columns. The schematic in the floors.html link is better. If the floor attachment to the outside wall failed, that wouldn't do much, since the inner core is holding.

So, the truss failure theory only makes sense if the fire was in the VERY MIDDLE of the building, in the inner core -- and if it is the INNER floors that failed first. Again, it doesn't have to be a large fire and uniform heat -- but may be too many consequences are requires for this.

The bottom line here, I think, that could have indeed been 'helped' by thermates or dynamate -- but from the point of view of structural engineering, what happened looks very natural. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THESE THINGS ARE TRAINED TO ANALISE THEM IN A CERTAIN WAY. WTC collapse 'passes', it doesn't look unusual to the experts. Which just takes away from everything else that happened during it and in the aftermath.

 

[Peto]

The bottom line here, I think, that could have indeed been 'helped' by thermates or dynamate

Hi Trinity,

I'm not sure what you meant by "help by thermates or dynamate." You seemed to imply that just a little explosive to initiate the initial failure was needed and then the towers would fall on their own. However, according to the study here http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf, even after the initial failure happened, the collapse would not be able to continue under the effect of gravity alone. And of course, the speed of collapse totally excluded that possibility.

-- but from the point of view of structural engineering, what happened looks very natural. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THESE THINGS ARE TRAINED TO ANALISE THEM IN A CERTAIN WAY. WTC collapse 'passes', it doesn't look unusual to the experts. Which just takes away from everything else that happened during it and in the aftermath.

What about the many experts who said immediately after seeing the collapse that it looked exactly like controlled demolition?

 

[Kieran]

This is an interesting post for the arguments and counter-arguments involved in ‘heat-deformed’ steel supports and ‘pancake collapse’ theories.

It is also interesting to observe how we could become focussed (vectored?) onto single contentious issues and possibly lose sight of context.

Or at least an uncritical public might. And then accept (with relief – ‘cos they can then turn over and go back to sleep!) that with this one issue of the 911 attack 'explained' by ‘a scientist’ the government are right and the ‘conspiracy nuts’ are just that – unstable (probably dangerous!) ‘tin-foil-hat-wearing’, unpatriotic, anarchic trouble-makers!

Even if the building did fail on its own, that doesn't solve all the other numerous issues with the 911 tragedy

Absolutely correct. And we don’t even need to extend to considering paper passports fluttering clear of heat that distorts steel; ludicrously increased ‘put options’ on holdings in airline companies a week or two before; or even multiple copies of the Koran being distributed around ‘crime scenes’ as if deposited by some demented, Islamic group of ‘Gideon’s-Bible-style’ Koranist evangelicals! (Gideon’s Koranists who also, by the way, seem to enjoy video cassettes of such riveting stuff as: ‘How to Fly a Boeing 747!]

So we have the strange phenomena of some 40+ odd ‘coincidences’ all going in the same direction!!! Hmmm. Isn’t this how detectives and prosecutors build a case for prosecution? (At least the few remaining uncorrupted ones!)

But just sticking with the impacts and fires.

Dr Keith Seffen is quoted as saying:

"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.

OK.

So what about WTC 7 that didn’t suffer an ‘extraordinary aircraft impact’, or even a dousing with tons of high octane jet fuel that exploded through the upper stories?

And if: "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural…", why did not the Empire State Building collapse in 1945 when it was hit by a B25 bomber?

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

_http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

Just read part of the above again: “The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.”

Sure sounds to me that, based upon Dr Seffen's ingenuous, almost casually ‘throw-away’, one-liner - "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural” – that the Empire State Building should ‘ordinarily’ and ‘naturally’ have collapsed!

And, finally, if maybe it’s to do with the ‘heat’ … ah yes, that must be what he REALLY meant! … and distorting steel … because the fires had been ‘raging’ for an hour or so … let’s just consider the Madrid Skyscraper Fire of 13 February 2005:

The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense
fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real
world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to
collapse.

As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's
business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear
of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar
construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained
standing.

_http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_9-11.html

_http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

Well … I could go on … as I’m sure we all could.

The thing that gets to me – even as I struggle for detachment – is that these imbecilic buffoons (useful idiots!) and professional dis-informationists (COINTELPRO) succeed time and again in vectoring a largely ‘sleeping’ world population in the direction they want them to go – and in the face of the most blatant absurdities and facts that PEOPLE CAN SEE WITH THEIR OWN EYES! (Although this is a real world example of: “Let those with eyes to see, see!”)

My own father is a case in point. (Probably why this sort of thing pushes my buttons!) He is now retired, but has a Masters Degree in Physics and Applied Mathematics, and when I first started talking to him about the anomalies in the WTC attack and tower collapses, he actually went white with rage and told me I was sounding like a nut! He went so far as to say he did not want to hear another word!

This was a bit of a shock to me, as my father and I are very close, and had always before been able to rationally discuss just about anything on any subject … however ‘way out’ to my father’s way of thinking.

So I deliberately avoided any more such conversations with him. (911, which began to play in my mind more and more in the months following the ‘attack’, had become a subject ‘not to speak about’ when I visited my parents.)

Then one day, when I visited, my father pounced triumphantly as I came through the door, brandishing a copy of the article in Popular Mechanics ‘explaining’ the heat-induced steel distortions and pancake collapse of the 90+ remaining floors … which, of course, didn’t lie on the ground in a stack of ‘floor pancakes’ as one might expect. No, no … they pulverized each other on the way down and transformed into lethal clouds of dust!

Thrusting the rolled up article in my direction like a gladius, my father exclaimed something like: “There you are! Read it. A perfectly logical explanation!”

I had, of course, already discounted the Popular Mechanics article as BS and COINTELPRO. And had subsequently gone on to discover that Popular Mechanics is, in fact, owned by the Hearst Corporation, which is a huge media corporation with long-term close links to the CIA. [I believe that Benjamin Chertoff is – or was at one time – a senior officer in the company … you know … brother to good ol’ Mikey Chertoff … of Homeland Security fame!]

But, I didn’t mention any of the above to my father. The reaction last time had been so strong and desperate that I couldn’t bring myself to. [I didn’t agree with my ol’ man though. Just grinned and said something about ‘many viewpoints’ being considered.]

Anyway, the point to the above cathartic recitation, is that I know that my father – despite his considerable, way above average, erudition and common sense – will accept the BS of such as Dr Seffen, and feel comfortably convinced that the official explanation of 911 is correct, and that ‘the fanatical al’Qaeda terrorist group’ did it all!

So I suppose I am at last beginning to accept that our earth has a date with destiny in the very near future. And it ain’t gonna be a ‘walk in the park!’

And I don’t think we can stop it. And maybe we are not supposed to. Maybe, truly, somewhere in a ‘Book of Life’ for planet Earth: “It is written.”

What we can do, as I believe is the emphasis of SOTT, is to work on ourselves as individuals, and utilise the times we live in for personal growth. While also, of course, being available to share what we have learned with others who are seeking.

And, on a note of hope, I can’t help feeling that these very dangerous and even ‘evil’ times do seem to be doing more to wake a number of people up than all the events of previous centuries.

There is an old Samurai saying that comes to mind:

“The raw iron in the furnace thinks it is being cruelly treated; the tempered steel blade, upon looking back, knows better.”

Kieran

 

[anart]

WTC collapse 'passes', it doesn't look unusual to the experts.

Apologies, but this is simply not true. As has been covered here, and on the associated web pages, and many other places, the collapse does indeed look very unusual to a vast number of 'experts'. Up to this point, it has appeared that only those experts who benefit in one way or another from seeing it as 'not unusual' have come out publicly stating such. Certainly you are not unaware of this?

In addition, you seemed to not have understood my simple points - both buildings FELL PERFECTLY INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS - at very close to free fall speed, had this happened once, it COULD have been a fluke of perfectly, uniformly, failing supports - since this happened twice it can only logically point to controlled demolition. I'm certainly not the first person to point this out, nor even remotely the most technically qualified, and I don't understand how this is lost on you, or your husband.

I'm thinking at this point that, perhaps, I am seriously misunderstanding what you're trying to say, if so, I do apologize.