Seffen's Folly - Busted, Cambridge/BBC attempted deception
Nov 6 2007, 05:32 AM
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49
Seffen's Folly: Attempted 9/11 Hoax By Cambridge And The BBC Was A Failure
winterpatriot.blogspot, November 05, 2007
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 Mechanics the BBC was reporting that the findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and 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...
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 05:16 PM|