BBC Reports "9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged" by Dr Keith Seffen

digg_url = '';

An 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.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York.

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.

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").

Full Article :


I have already complained to the BBC about the lack of fairness in the article, suggesting the addition of some papers from the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

If you agree, please complain to the BBC : [ HERE ]

It's also on DIGG (via OCT'ers) so please DIGG and more importantly comment / support and vote up/down others comments too.

DIGG Link :

This is the challenge our great engineers have been waiting for...

Ask Questions, Demand Answers, Letsss Roll

Spotted this comment over at DIGG...

I cannot confirm it but it appears genuine.

This is total bullshit, this guy is a moron. He even has a Cambridge MA, check his website out: and what's worse he's advertising the fact.

For those that don't know, a Cambridge MA (Masters Degree) is awarded automatically to anyone who graduates from Cambridge with an undergraduate degree one year post graduation, you don't have to do any work for it. In the world of British academia it's ridiculed and laughed at, as being the obvious sign of Cambridge elitism, the height of arrogance.

Anyone who thinks this research is bullshit, needs to contact this 'professor' and let him know:

First ask him what work he did to receive his Cambridge MA, that always goes down well with Cambridge graduates.

Please help over at DIGG (if you can give a click or two)

Many thanks and best wishes

No, he does have a PhD

True, the Brits have different processes for their graduate degree programs (and maybe the Cambridge MA is indeed known as an add-on), but his credentials stand up. The following is from his profile on the Cambridge University School of Engineering website, (same as the link you provide – it's not *his* website) which, again, is here:

"Dr Keith A SEFFEN

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


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.


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.


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)."

He is the real thing, a genuine Cambridge University professor ("lecturer"), though I'd bet his study is BS. His email is indeed published on that page, though I'd say it would be best to leave it to the qualified engineers among us like Kevin Ryan to respond to this in a professional way. At any rate, it always pays to be respectful and polite.

Better Link to DIGG...


Source Article :


It's a big battle going on, WE NEED YOU !!!

Many thanks and best wishes

Re-posted as reply, above


Thanks CBuzzawitz...

Totally agree...

I'll let the "heavyweights" sort this. He'll be "out-for-the-count" when Gordon Ross and the rest of the great minds deliver their "knockout blow"

Best wishes



And nicely spotted.


Where is the model ?

The article does not say a word about the model proposed by K. Steffen ...

We should discuss the model ... is it relevant (what does it ignore) and what
does it show ...

We need his numbers. Anybody got values for impact vs load?

Without his calculations this is just idle boasting.
On another forum I'm running a debate with some OCT-huggers, on WTC collapse, and one of them pointed out that the stress of impact is greater than a static load.
I was wondering if there is a simple equation for this derived from simple variables like speed and weight, or is it more complex depending on the type of structure impacted?
In other words, is there an equation that directly relates impact shock to static load
Googling, i found that there is probably not. I found a site that refers to tables etc.

A lot has to do with how the structure redistributes the shock or load.
A first approximation for equivalent static load is "g load times the mass"

But there is no formula to translate between impact or acceleration or shock and static load.
It all depends, for instance on the mass of the impacted object.

We know the twin towers were designed to hold 5 times the actual static load.

With WTC7 of course it is much more difficult to even model collapse initiation.

With the Twin Towers the problem is always that to get a rapid collapse of even one floor, you need to get simultaneous failure of all support columns for the collapse to get up any speed over a fall of only one or two floors, and that's impossible except in a CD ctrl deml.

and even if you got that, the acceleration would not be great

and even if it was enough to collapse a 3rd floor, the resistance would be far more than a fraction of a second.

Look at the dust.

I'm weary of the numbers game when any fool can see that the buildings were exploded (1 and 2), and imploded (7). The degree of concrete pulverization alone is proof enough. It is pointless to argue numbers, when the photographic evidence tells the whole story. We were fooled, get over it.

Agreed -

But we have to jump through ALL of their hoops, it's just the nature of the game.


We need a published paper to dissect and then we can school the fool.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.