Seffen’s Article On “Pristine Pancakes” Is Blatantly Bogus As Predicted Here

By The Anonymous Physicist

The article by British mathematician, Keith Seffen, PhD is to be published in the February, 2008 issue of the  Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM), a monthly publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). I have previously written here how there were two ways to fudge both what actually happened to the WTC towers, and to counter the Laws of Physics (including the Conservation Laws of Momentum and Energy, and Newton’s three Laws of Motion). You can read Seffen’s article here.  Watch for this mathematician/blogger’s updates here.

After the expected, fanciful mathematics section, Seffen blatently reveals, in his conclusion section (exactly as I predicted), just how he fudged his “article”.  Here is Seffen’s conclusion and note the areas I have added bold to, and will expound upon:

Many simplifications have been made in this analysis for the sake of transparency. For example, the constructional properties of original WTC towers are not homogenous over the entire height, but only over discrete portions and differently so. The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally;  any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected; and the final stage of collapse after the crush-front reaches the base is discounted. However, the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward. Such refinements may negate the ability to obtain closed-form solutions, which are essential in ascribing the generic character of behaviour and for distilling key formulae, especially in view of designing buildings to withstand progressive collapse. Importantly, this study has shown that progressive collapse and its features are concomitant to the full, up-down-up deformation response of the structural unit, and that its properties are finely balanced–that collapse can be total or not at all, and that, in the former case, the rate of collapse tends to a uniform acceleration not dependent on the residual capacity of the building. These comments attest to the similarities between the collapse sequences of both WTC towers despite their quite different initial conditions. And it is noted that progressive collapse, when wrought, is quite ordinary and regular and not due to extraordinary, possibly conspiratorial, influences.

Let me now show you how his revelations in this conclusion section prove how deliberately bogus his entire article is. First his “none of the falling mass moves laterally” denies what was observed–the massive outward or LATERAL explosions–such as are seen here! Clearly the mass moves laterally, that is, it’s exploded outward, some components have the initial UPWARD parabolic arcs, as Siegel’s Eyewitness video demonstrates, and as I have repeatedly written match the parabolic arcs seen on photos of underground nukes being exploded, such as the top photos here.  This “simplification” as he calls it, reveals that he deliberately ignored what actually happened to the majority of the mass of the towers, being exploded or vaporized, as the videos and photos prove. This means that he simply used the math of a gravitational, magical, pristine pancaking “collapse” and not what actually happened. Whether you call it fudging, or circular logic; it is claptrap and impossible propaganda.

Secondly, his, “any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected”, is precisely what I earlier wrote—namely that he would need to counter or ignore, the Laws of Physics. I didn’t think he would have the gall to do the latter! But in the spirit of the magic, pristine bullet of Arlen (Future Senator for Life) Spector, HE DID COMPLETLEY IGNORE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, AND BRAGS ABOUT IT. He is admitting that his model has no slowing down of the collapse, because he left out the forces that colliding floors impart to each other! Thus his paper is just mathematical fantasy— and not the Physics of an actual “collapse”. It is mathematical fudging at its worst, and it has no bearing on anything in the real world. Here he has admitted that his paper is a paper on the math of an impossible, pristine pancaking, whereby there are no forces occurring when a floor impacts another floor! All the math is not needed, because you have to end up with free fall time, if you leave out the Laws of Physics, including those related to floors’ forces (his “impulsive action” that he took out) on “collapsing” floors on to them, that—in the real world—would have slowed down or halted “collapse.”

Now his reason for leaving out the Physics is the epitome of a circular logic admission. He basically ADMITS (as follows) to needing to fudge it the way it has to come out (for the PTB)! His, “Such refinements may negate the ability to obtain closed-form solutions, which are essential in ascribing the generic character of behaviour and for distilling key formulae, especially in view of designing buildings to withstand progressive collapse.” This ludicrous statement is blatantly anti-scientific. He is saying that he needs to obtain simple formulae that can be useful to prevent future “collapses.”  He is admitting to being intolerant of including the actual laws of Physics, and the actual phenomena observed (see above) just to end up with simple, solvable equations. This is the opposite of Physics and Science. Indeed the entire field of computers originally came about because Physicists needed to solve (to use his terms) NON-“closed-form” equations.  His simple, non-physical “closed-form” equations will not prevent duplicate “collapses.  Ridding the world of the mass murdering—here nuking—PTB is the only thing that can prevent the future nuking of skyscrapers! His clever ruse though can now be used by the PTB to bogusly claim that future pristine pancaking “collapses” have to occur in free-fall time. This paper is to be used to “explain” the free-fall  time.

He admits his goal at the end,  “And it is noted that progressive collapse, when wrought, is quite ordinary and regular and not due to extraordinary, possibly conspiratorial, influences.”  The inclusion of “when wrought” is fascinating. He does not say–as a scientist MUST, that his finding proves that whenever the initial conditions are achieved, the same result must happen. He  is saying that when you find that a free fall time “collapse” occurred [“was wrought” by the PTB via nukes], don’t dare question it, AFTER it has occurred. And the purpose of his paper is to counter the extraordinary (nuclear) explosions seen, and the conspiracy involved.

Some final notes. Seffen ignores–as did the OCT–the demolition of WTC7. His paper also relies on another, earlier bogus paper in the same journal.So the long-awaited, “Pristine Pancaking Paper” is just impossible propaganda from a regime’s shill. It is devoid of Physics, devoid of the reality that we have all seen on video and photos. As earlier noted, it is a repeat of the impossible magic, pristine bullet of the Kennedy assassination. Whether the British-American Regime shoots a President, or nukes thousands of innocent citizens, said regime believes it can hoodwink the people with impossible, Laws of Physics-violating, or ignoring, scenarios. Getting the masses to believe such impossible claptrap induces deeper states of denial and schizoid reality. It also causes the masses to become what Deek Jackson,  of the Fuk’n Newz,  calls “Six billion collaborators.” But we know that the induced feelings of helplessness are terminated by taking the first action against those who nuked 3000 innocent human beings and are waging perennial war on Mankind.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: