Dr. Seffen - Every stone left unturned. - by Gordon Ross
I must admit that I did toy with the idea of writing this reply to the article by Dr. Seffen before I read it, so cannot claim to be totally surprised by his obviously shallow depth of knowledge and the dismal level of research undertaken. What does continue to astonish me is that otherwise obviously intelligent people would choose to enter this debate standing on the shaky ground of an already discredited theory and armed only with an ability to overlook or ignore obvious and readily available pieces of evidence.
Even the few pieces of evidence that Dr. Seffen has managed to wedge into his theory stand out with the incongruity of an elephant in a flock of sheep. Dr. Seffen notes the simultaneous expulsions of dust and debris from successive storeys down the tower and cites this as supportive of his theory of a storey-by-storey progressive collapse. Had he examined these expulsions with more care he would have noted that they do not emanate from every storey as he suggests. These expulsions emanate from every third storey and this is most obvious in the early stages as the disintegration progresses from the aircraft impact levels downwards. So one of the very few pieces of evidence that Dr. Seffen rests his theory upon when examined with more detail actually contradicts that theory. Furthermore it can be seen that these expulsions do not initially emanate from close to the corners but instead from the mid wall sections - another detail which is overlooked or ignored by Dr Seffen, and not supportive of his theory.
Instead this evidence can best be explained by an attack on the core column section welds which were located every third storey. Such an attack would result in expulsions of dust and debris from every third storey and these would initially emanate from the mid wall sections rather than close to the corners. This evidence contradicts Dr. Seffen’s theory and fits exactly with the demolition theory.
The other occasion where Dr. Seffen ventures into the real world of physical evidence, he again makes assertions that cannot be justified. He notes the statements from fire-fighters regarding the series of loud reports as the disintegration commences, and claims that this sound is that of the floors colliding with each other as collapse progresses. However a little more thought on Dr. Seffen part would have allowed him to realise that discrete and identifiable sounds could only arise from two or more parallel floors colliding. The tower top section tipping over would have ensured that the floors were no longer parallel, and the resulting collisions would not give rise to sharp, discrete sounds, but rather would be a series of more protracted sounds melding together. Instead this succession of sharp, identifiable reports, the “boom, boom, boom, boom” reported by many fire-fighters, and other people on the scene fits exactly with a demolition theory including a series of demolition charges placed at the core column section welds.
So of the two pieces of evidence that Dr. Seffen regards as being supportive of his theory, neither can be used with any confidence. Of the other pieces of evidence, Dr. Seffen makes no mention.
Where is the explanation for the presence of the microspherules that Dr. Jones has been reporting?
To what does Dr. Seffen attribute the light flashes and changes in the colour and character of the smoke emissions immediately prior to the disintegration, in areas which form a definite and identifiable pattern, and which same areas are major seats of failure immediately after the onset of the disintegration?
What reason does Dr. Seffen cite for the molten metal, seen pouring from the tower, reported and photographed in the debris pile and noted in official reports?
Why did the debris pile burn so long and so hot, even necessitating the eventual application of a fire retardant material, specifically formulated to fight metal fires?
Where are the examples of columns or other members which evidence the type of failure that Dr. Seffen would expect from his theory, and why do many of the column ends show signs of a localised thermal event?
How does Dr. Seffen account for the sad and troubling fact that a large proportion of the victims could not be recovered, even for DNA analysis?
Dr Seffen may have been able to get away with this lightweight treatment of the subject a few years ago, but many aspects have been discovered, discussed and reported in the intervening six years. It should have been incumbent upon Dr. Seffen to ensure that he was at least up to date with the readily available knowledge before venturing into the discussion. The only alternative to the conclusion that Dr. Seffen has conducted research where every stone has been left unturned is that he was aware of these other pieces of evidence but has decided to ignore them. When such a wealth of evidence exists that either contradicts or cannot be explained by a theory, then it is the theory that is thrown out and not the evidence.
Dr. Seffen’s theoretical analysis is new wine in old bottles. Basing his thinking upon the discredited work of Dr. Bazant, he makes the same mistake. It is exasperating to again read the same ludicrous logic espoused using different words. Tell me any occasion at any time ever in the known universe where a collision between any two unequal objects of whatever size shape or mass you care to mention, has resulted, or would result in the larger, stronger object, “bearing the brunt” of the collision. I am now inured from astonishment that anyone would seriously base any analysis upon such an absurd premise, but this is exactly what Dr. Seffen has done. He chooses to endorse, and indeed quotes the view put forward by Dr. Bazant that all of the energy of the falling upper section would be concentrated into destroying the first storey below the collapse front. This is not a minor point. Only by using this artifice can the official theory be held as an explanation for the continuation of the collapse and the time taken for the collapse.
The absurdity of this position has been pointed out on many occasions in the past, but clearly must be done again. I will again try to show this in simple terms, not necessarily for the layman.
Upon collision of the upper section with the lower section, the upper section must provide a force to accomplish two tasks in order to ensure the progression of the collapse. One of these is that force which is required to cause deflection, then failure, of the uppermost column sections in the lower section. The other force required is that force necessary to accelerate those masses in the lower section that must be moved downwards in order for collapse to continue. This force is dependent upon the acceleration that is required and this necessarily is dependent upon the velocity of the upper section at impact and upon the characteristics of the collision. The magnitude of the mass to be moved is not constant because the force will in time be felt by an increasing length of column and thus mass of columns and floor slabs. Initially the mass will consist of one floor slab and a length of column, but many more floor slabs and column length will be rapidly engaged.
In order to satisfy these two demands the upper section must apply a force and this must come from a relative deceleration of some or all of its mass. If we consider the lowermost floor slab in the lower section we can say that a force arising from its deceleration would be immediately felt by the uppermost floor slab in the lower section. However any decelerations from other masses within the upper section will manifest as forces within the intervening columns, and are not felt directly and immediately at the plane of collapse between the colliding floor slabs. In order to have any effect in satisfying the demands present in the collapse region, the forces must be transmitted through the columns that connect the individual masses from their positions in the upper section. The maximum magnitude of the force that can be exerted by all these other masses within the upper section is limited by the force that can be transmitted through the intervening columns and must necessarily be the failure load of the lowermost columns of the upper section. Greater forces than the failure load cannot be transmitted, as these will cause failure of the columns rather than an increase in the force at the collapse front. The columns themselves are responsible for the decelerations that cause the forces and they cannot cause decelerations greater than their failure loads will cause. Like trying to push over an elephant with a bendy stick.
So the maximum energy which would be available at the collapse front is not due to the mass of the entire upper section, as the official theory claims and needs, but is limited to that due from only one floor slab in the upper section and an amount that the lowermost columns can transmit prior to their failure. Dr. Bazant is quoted by Dr. Seffen saying that the energy of the upper section is 8.4 times the energy required to crush one storey. Irrespective of the veracity of this claim, it is clear that this level of energy would not be available. Instead of a mass of sixteen or thirty storeys used to calculate the ratio of 8.4, a mass of only one floor slab should have been used. The resulting ratio using the correct effective mass would have been less than 1 and this means that collapse would be arrested. When other energy demands of the collision are taken into account, and a more realistic value for this ratio is assessed, it is clear that the energy available to cause the uppermost storey to collapse was far less than what was required.
Now compare the columns in the upper and lower sections.
The uppermost columns of the lower section are subject to the force from the deceleration of one floor slab and whatever force is transferred through the upper columns. Those forces must also satisfy the need to accelerate the masses downwards - the inertial force.
The lowermost columns in the upper section are subject to the force from the deceleration of one floor slab and a length of the columns in the upper section. This force is resisted only by the columns; there is no inertial force to be overcome.
Thus the uppermost columns in the lower section are protected from the worst effects of the collision by the presence of the inertia of the uppermost floor slab, while the lowermost columns have no such protection and are subject to a greater load. This can be visualised by imagining two collisions involving two similar objects, glass beakers being a good example. Placing one on the ground and dropping the other on top of it, the result could be that either one may break or both break or none break. Now place one on the ground and balance a paving slab on top of it before dropping the second beaker down on to the slab. There are no imaginable circumstances where the lower beaker would smash but the dropped beaker would remain totally undamaged. From this explanation and visualisation it is clear that the first failures would tend to be in the upper section. The official theory relies on this not happening, and stretching incredulity even further, it relies on all the columns in the upper section exerting no force, and absorbing no energy whatsoever.
News of this upcoming article indicated that it was a refutation of the “conspiracy theory”, surrounding the disintegration of the three World Trade Centre Towers. It would appear that the news was only an attempt to boost publicity since Dr. Seffen does not examine, and does not attempt a refutation of any theory. I am disappointed that this opportunity to examine the evidence and perhaps advance our understanding has failed to materialise. With that, there leaves nothing else of use to be gleaned from this article. Handicapped by being based on a clearly false premise, contradicted by the available evidence, it has limited technical value.
"Progressive
Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis"
by Dr Keith Seffen
http://winterpatriot.pbwiki.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf
