9/11: Irresponsible Science – POP MEC & Dr Seffen

By J A Blacker
RINF Alternative News 

Popular Mechanics likes to go around telling people what makes a real MAN, but if they were real men they would admit when they have screwed up and have got their 911 theory all wrong.

Popular Mechanics were given a fair challenge via Open letter – Prove your ludicrous 9/11 theories in public

That published challenge was given them on Saturday, 06 October 2007 and still to date, two months later 05 December 2007 they have given every other type of advice – but have FAILED To show even one slither of evidence to back up their Physically Impossible 911 twin Towers Gravity Collapse THEORY!

No Doubt they are waiting for the paper from Dr Keith A. Seffen in February 2008 to be published – so they can site that as their proof, but guess what, we have top notch analysis of the Seffen paper & its components, and to say it is a work of FICTION is an understatement. It defies all commons sense or scientific honesty.

Here are but a few problems of dishonesty within the Seffen paper titled:

K A Seffen, “Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis”, (2007) ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press

1) The constant loading at the start of the deformation has been neglected on the basis that it is a small contribution to the deformation, yet this can not be so, that it is the longest timescale involved.

To quote a trivial example of such a deformation, a plastic shopping bag becomes taut for most loads, but when the load gets too large, it does not snap immediately. It creeps for a while under that constant load, before giving way to a large deformation (After the creeping has happened the load required to cause this large deformation is smaller than that required to cause the creeping itself), and eventually snapping. In this case, Seffen’s P* corresponds to the AVERAGE load required to cause the large deformation AFTER creeping has happened. In other words, if you try loading the plastic bag with P* while it is UN damaged (i.e. before creeping), then you will NOT get the large deformation!

This sort of argument applies to objects in tension, compression, and buckling. It is true for EACH floor of the WTC.

2) Can we really make the assumption that P* is the same for every floor? – ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is much larger for the lower floors than for the upper ones. The P* value has been fiddles, because basically his fall acceleration is proportional to (mg-P*)

3) The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. Obviously a load of bull! Check out NIST, what about all of the 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete and the 47 massive steel core columns “indestructible Core”?

4) The analysis relies very heavily on an assumption of no mass-loss from the WTC during the fall. Yet, didn’t the videos show that heavy girders were laterally ejected (Not to mention the loss of concrete and other stuff)? How can the destruction eject Mass and it still be causing Collapse?

5) When an impacted floor begins to fall, it does not go from zero to free-fall speed instantaneously! There is a delay while it accelerates up to that speed. This transition region WILL make a very large difference a massive increase in fall time.

Last, but not least, he admits toward the end that the analysis is simplified, yet he makes the claim that free-fall speed is possible, without making any attempt whatsoever to say how these neglected assumptions are likely to affect the result. In other words, he has no right to make his claims.

The “Seffen” is a FRAUD PAPER! – PERIOD!!! It makes no sense what so ever and even claims there is an indestructible block of upper floors left after the destruction sequence. Its like claiming a small car bashes into the back of a large bus, destroys the large bus but suffers no dints or loss of parts on the small car – how dishonest is that?

Anyone with half a brain knows a large Bus can not be be destroyed without the car receiving significant damage & deformation if not total annihilation in the process.

`So, “Popular Mechanics”, either Back up your Physically Impossible 911 Gravity Collapse Claims or “Shut up” giving men advice.

You should be in the hairstyling industry giving folk tips as to what nail varnish goes with what skimpy underwear. There is nothing Popular or Mechanics about you, you are but yellow mouthpiece journalists without the proper credentials to make the Irresponsible claims you make.

POP MEC – PUT UP or Shut UP – Back up your Ludicrous 911 Gravity collapse claims with real Science!