Stack Of Reports Proves It: Office Furnishings Killed Building 7

In a press conference yesterday, Shyam Sunder, who represents the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] as Lead Investigator of the World Trade Center Disaster, introduced himself and said:

I am here to summarize the findings from our three-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

The collapse of WTC 7 has been a source of extensive speculation. No planes hit the building. There was damage to the building from the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 1, which was about 370 feet to the south. [...] But despite damage that severed seven exterior columns, Building 7 remained standing.

I've snipped a reference to a map showing the location of WTC 1. I've also snipped other references to visual aids and some more-or-less tangential material, so we can concentrate on Shyam Sunder's explanation of what happened to WTC 7.

Here's how it happened, according to Shyam Sunder:

The debris from Tower 1 [...] started fires on at least 10 floors of the building. The fires burned out of control on six of these ten floors for about seven hours.

The city water main had been cut by the collapse of the two WTC Towers, so the sprinklers in Building 7 did not function for much of the bottom half of the building. Nevertheless, other tall office buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing—when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional.

So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9-11 would be difficult.

It certainly would be. And the difficulty sprang from two sources.

First, NIST had to find a way to dismiss all the evidence that points to the deliberate destruction of the building.

As if that weren't difficult enough, they then had to follow up by "explaining" how the tower could have disintegrated due to "natural" causes.

Shyam Sunder attacks on the first point straight-away, saying:

It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that’s why the building failed.

... except that it did. It fit a textbook description perfectly. But that description was not admissible.

The thing is: we know what happened. We've heard from people who were there that day who were warned in advance; we've seen video of police shooing people away from the building and saying "The building's gonna blow up."

But no...

In August of 2002—exactly six years ago today, with authority and funding from Congress, NIST started its building and fire safety investigation of all three World Trade Center building collapses. The study of Towers 1 and 2 was extremely complex, and as a result, we had to place our study of WTC 7 on hold. In September of 2005, with the study of the towers complete, we began the study of Building 7’s collapse in earnest.

We conducted our study with no preconceived notions about what happened.

That's probably true. But it's clear that they had some powerful preconceived notions about what didn't happen!

We gathered evidence, we analyzed that evidence, we constructed computer models grounded in principles of physics and using detailed data on every aspect of the building’s construction, detailed information on its contents, videos and photos of the event, and witness accounts.

All this evidence would have been carefully selected, to be sure.

Among other damning details, NIST had to ignore:

• witness accounts of bomb damage in the building before the planes hit the other towers,
• witness accounts of evacuation and a countdown before the building was demolished,
• a televised interview with the building's owner, in which he explained when and how and why the decision to destroy the building was made, and
  
• the fact that the demolition was announced to the world by an allegedly reputable international news agency, before it even happened!

In the clip above, the BBC reporter on the scene in Manhattan points to Building 7 while describing the hole in the skyline left by its collapse.

As tough as it may be to make all these anomalies go away, fabricating a counter-story seems to have been even more difficult. We'll get to that part of the task shortly.

First, Shyam Sunder gives an overview of the investigative team:

Our investigation team for this building consisted of about 50 people with expertise in structures, fire science and engineering, metallurgy, explosives, blast analysis, evacuation and emergency response, and other technical fields. Our own technical staff was complemented by world-class private sector experts on contract.

We conducted this study without bias, without interference from anyone and dedicated ourselves to do the very best job possible.

The team's lack of bias is readily apparent in the transcript of their leader's press conference. No doubt it will be equally visible in the final report, which is due to be released next month.

We have had only one single-minded goal during this entire effort. We wanted to determine the probable sequence of events that led to the collapse of Building 7 on 9-11, and then to share that information with the public in order to improve building and fire safety.

Before I tell you what we found, I’d like to tell you what we did not find.

This is Shyam Sunder's emphasis, by the way. And it's an important place to put it.

Watch carefully. Don't miss this next bit. Here comes the magic wand!

We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.

And now the next part is crucial, as we will see ...

We ran detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios. [We determined] the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses.

There are two problems with this "explanation" and they are very different. The first concerns the content of the argument. Nobody has claimed that WTC was demolished by a single bomb that went "BOOM". You don't need a shock wave that rocks the city to take down a building; you only need to cut some strategic steel in some strategic places. Thermite would do the job quite nicely, as would thermate, and neither would go "BOOM".

This video shows a pound of thermite burning on a frozen lake.

It melted three inches of ice but it didn't make much sound at all.

The second and more telling problem with the NIST explanation is revealed not in the content but in the style.

We can see quite clearly that they didn't "find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down" because they weren't looking for "any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down".

They were looking for a way to rule out any explanation involving the notion that "explosives were used to bring the building down", and this is the "way" that they found:

If the building had been demolished by explosives, the explosion would have made more noise than anybody reported hearing or any video recorded. Therefore the building wasn't demolished by explosives.

We've seen in the previous video how much noise thermite makes when it burns.

So we have no choice but to reject the NIST claim as false. Period.

After three years, this was the best they could come up with!

And sadly, it only "accomplished" half of their "mission".

On the other hand, with a single wave of the magic wand, NIST took us through the looking-glass. And none of the history matters anymore. But if it did, surely something or other in this video would be relevant:

Shyam Sunder continued:

The collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the building. Such fires from ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, would not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical columns, and would have produced copious smoke that was not was not observed on 9-11.

This passage is crucial for two main reasons. First of all, it discredits the vicious serial liars who have claimed for years that WTC 7 collapsed because of "fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the building".

Ha! Not even the government agrees with Joey Bananas anymore. Boo-Hoo for vicious idiots everywhere.

But secondly, if fires from the diesel fuel didn't cause the building to collapse, what could have done so?

What we found was that uncontrolled building fires—similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings—caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires.

Uncontrolled building fires! Very interesting!! What do you suppose fueled those fires? Here's a hint: it doesn't burn nearly as hot as diesel fuel, and it generates an awful lot of dark smoke ...

But nevertheless, NIST

reached [their] conclusion by reconstructing the entire building, beam by beam, column by column, connection by connection into a computer model, a virtual WTC 7 Building.

They "reconstructed" ... "the entire building" .. "into a computer model"! How extraordinary!

Then, they

filled that virtual building with as much detail as possible about exactly what types of furnishings were on each floor.

Yep. Furnishings! They had time and money to find out "what types of furnishings were on each floor", but they couldn't talk to any of the people who had been warned in advance that the building was going to blow up.

It's quite astonishing methodology, isn't it?

No! It's the normal way these sorts of things get covered up. I've been reading about these episodes -- events whose historical importance is routinely denied by people who are allegedly the nation's leading dissidents -- for most of my life.

The NIST approach is almost exactly the same as the approach used by the Warren Commission, which allegedly investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Just like NIST, the Warren Commission prided itself on having produced a huge stack of documents [see photo above]. They were counting on us not reading any of them. But they still hedged their bets.

The Warren Commission never claimed there was no evidence of a conspiracy; instead, the Warren Report said that they had "found no evidence" of a conspiracy.

Former Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford, who became our first unelected president after the resignation of Richard Nixon, stressed the difference in later interviews. He were dumb, but he weren't that dumb!

Back at the computer model, NIST

set fire to those virtual offices on the floors where video and other visual evidence told us the fires burned.

We used a well-validated computer program developed at NIST, for studying the growth and spread of fires, to calculate temperatures throughout the building. [...]

And we used well-established data on the properties of structural steel, the sprayed fire resistive material or fireproofing, and other building materials to determine how those temperatures affected the structure.

This is all theoretical, remember. All they needed to do -- apparently, all they did do -- was to create an animated computer model that looks something like the video of the event itself.

And they spent an incredible amount of time and money trying to develop one. Thus their leader reported that a

typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. The structural model of the building components used to predict the subsequent fire-induced progressive collapse included more than 3 million separate elements and took about 7 to 8 months to complete a single run on some very powerful computers.

Note the wording:

"The ... model ... used to predict the ... collapse ... "

The towers fell in 2001. The NIST study on WTC 7 didn't even get started "in earnest" until 2005. Their final report still hasn't been released. And yet Shyam Sunder can tell a room full of living, breathing, and presumably thinking human beings that his study "predicted" the demise of the building. How astonishing!

As I have discussed in connection with the Keith Seffen hoax, one cannot predict an event which has already happened. The use of such language -- "See! We were able to predict the past!" -- is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

It's an admission that the model was built to specifications -- specifications that must have read like this:

"Explain X without admitting Y or Z"

If there's one thing I agree with the NIST team about, it's their assessment of the difficulty of their task.

It wasn't just difficult; it was impossible!

And that's why it took 50 experts three years to fake it.

What do they say brought down the building? Are you ready?

A critical factor that led to the initiation of collapse was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems located in the east side of the building. [...]

Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under hot water to help loosen it up knows that metal expands when it gets hot. Beyond expansion, heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. In our investigation of the collapse of Towers 1 and 2, loss of strength and stiffness was more important. For WTC 7, thermal expansion was a critical factor. These effects occur at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness.

[...] on the east side of the building, these long beams are connected to a girder here and here, but there are no opposing support beams.

The exterior columns of the building were more closely spaced than the interior ones. When fires heated the floor system, thermal expansion of the floor beams caused damage to connections between the steel beams and concrete slab of the composite floor system. Some of the beams buckled. Others pushed the girders, causing some of them to buckle.

This is very interesting to me personally because I've seen steel columns that had buckled. Not pictures; actual steel. I've inspected it closely; I've held it in my hand. I know what it looks like.

And I've seen hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of pictures from the World Trade Center. Even though I haven't inspected the scene closely or held any of the steel in my hand, I have a good idea of what it looked like, too. And here's a very interesting coincidence:

I've seen many photographs of steel from the World Trade Center that looked as if it had been cut.

I've seen some photographs that showed steel which had obviously been bent.

But I've never seen a single photograph of a single piece of steel that looked as if it had buckled.

And this is a crucial distinction, because if there were photographs of buckled steel from the World Trade Center, you can bet the government and the very complicit media would show them night and day. These photographs would be "proof" that the "conspiracy theorists" are wrong.

But they don't show us anything like that. And do you want to know why? [Click the image to find out.]

Here's the "official" version; see how much sense it makes to you:

A few girders lost their connections to columns, triggering floor failures.

Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 were particularly severe. Long-span steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of the building, expanded significantly due to these fires, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long span floors on the east side of the building. The displaced girder, and other local fire-induced damage, caused Floor 13 to collapse. This began a cascading chain of failures of eight additional floors—many of which already had been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. With the support of these floors gone, column 79 buckled, which initiated the fire-induced progressive collapse of the building.

It's quite something, isn't it?

From a few grainy videos of the demolition, and a made-to-match computer animation, NIST can "pinpoint" the exact floor that "fell" first, and the exact column that "buckled" first.

It's quite incredible, isn't it?

I mean that literally: it's absolutely unbelievable!

This in turn caused the failure of nearby columns 80 and 81 and floor failures up to the roof line. [...]

In quick succession, the remaining interior columns failed from east to west across WTC 7, until the entire core began moving downward. Finally, the remaining outer shell or façade of the building fell. [...]

In general, tall buildings are very safe. We have decades upon decades of real-life experience to prove this. This was a rare event.

Rare? It's unique!! It's an absolutely unprecedented event in the annals of structural failure, and a grotesque understatement to assert that such an event was "rare"!

But if you want to go beyond unique, wait for the explanation:

This study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse.

There's that magic wand again! Did you see it go by?

Now, thanks to 9/11 and the good folks at NIST, there's "a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse"!

Nothing like this has ever happened before, and nothing like it has ever happened since, but a representative of NIST -- the leader of the NIST investigation -- can claim, with a straight face,

we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse.

Straight face or not, that's a dreadful lie. "Shown" is hardly the word for what NIST has done here.

For the first time ever, somebody has claimed that fire can induce a progressive collapse; but nobody -- not NIST, not anybody else, ever, anywhere -- nobody has shown anything of the sort.

Any clown can make a claim. But it takes real evidence to "show" something, especially in the strict engineering or mathematical sense of the term.

But Shyam Sunder doesn't pause to strengthen his very lame argument. Instead he goes on to the waving of the magic cloth: What can we learn from this?

In the building community the term “progressive collapse” means the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. [...]

WTC 7, which included floor spans as long as 54 feet, had a structural system design that is in widespread use in other tall buildings. The length of floor spans is important. Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater thermal expansion effects, but such effects may also be present in buildings with shorter span lengths depending on the design of the structural system.

We strongly recommend that building owners, operators, and designers evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. [...]

So far, with all this talk [and much else that I've snipped], the big question has remained unanswered: What fueled the fires that allegedly caused the building to disintegrate?

Are you ready for this?

It was office furnishings.

Can you believe it?

I can't, either. Watch this short video and see what you think!

But ...

Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.

It collapsed because fires—similar to those experienced in other tall buildings—burned in the absence of water supply to operate the sprinklers, and burned beyond the ability of firefighters to control fires. It fell because thermal expansion, a phenomenon not considered in current building design practice, caused a fire-induced progressive collapse. [...]

We will be accepting public comments on our final report until September 15, 2008. Directions for submitting these comments are provided on our web site at wtc.nist.gov.

At this point, I’ll be happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

Oh yes ... I have a question for you, sir.

Instead of considering any of the eyewitness and video evidence which shows quite clearly that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished, on a pre-set schedule, and that people were warned and evacuated ahead of time, you and your team have spent three years building and running a computer model so complex that it takes seven to eight months for a single iteration.

You've done all this, knowing it could never prove what actually happened -- that the most it could show would be that one potential explanation for the disintegration of the building was plausible. And your study hasn't even done that.

The impact of your report couldn't possibly be greater. Millions of innocent lives are at stake; and at the same time, the world's most vicious and violent terrorists are still at large.

Instead of helping to rectify the situation, you have led your team to devote three years to building a model and pretending it's reality, while systematically shutting out every conflicting fragment of the real story. You weren't even sly enough to hide it in your press conference.

Your absurd explanation, with its talk of a "new phenomenon", is an insult to the intelligence of all thinking people. It's also a disgrace to the memories of the victims of 9/11, and a betrayal of their families, of all Americans, of all mankind.

So here's my question, sir:

How do you sleep? How can you possibly sleep?

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

The 9/11 Hoax that Didn't Quite Work for Dr. Keith Seffen and the BBC

On September 11, 2007, the BBC published an article called "9/11 demolition theory challenged", which described a research paper written by University of Cambridge senior lecturer Keith Seffen.

Dr. Seffen, the BBC said, had constructed a mathematical model of the World Trade Center collapses 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".

The BBC also reported that Dr. Seffen's findings "are published" in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) is a monthly publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). A search of the ASCE website turned up no mention of a Keith Seffen, nor any mention of any "Seffen".

I wrote a brief item about this that morning.

1) September 11, 2007:

UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'

Shortly after my piece was published, the BBC page was changed to say that that Dr. Seffen's findings "are to be published" in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

I noted the change in an update to my item, where I also provided a link to two different mirrors of the original text. I also noticed the distinctive smell of manure. So I kept digging.

It became apparent obvious that the BBC piece was based on a press release from Cambridge, which said (in the opening paragraph) that Dr. Seffen's findings were "published", and (much later) that they were "to be published".

Apparently this self-contradiction didn't raise any eyebrows. But it was not the only problem with the press release.

Virtually every paragraph was either misleading or downright false. And it showed very clearly that Seffen's approach was not scientific, but political. I wrote about the press release three days later.

2) September 14, 2007:

Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'

Nearly eight weeks later, after repeated requests for clarification (from myself and others) had been ignored, I posted a compendium of the coverage Seffen and his paper had received, noting that it had been largely uncritical but remarkably sparse.

3) November 5, 2007:

Seffen's Folly: Attempted 9/11 Hoax By Cambridge And The BBC Was A Failure

The following day I noted some of the many unanswered questions and documented a series of requests for clarification which had been ignored by Dr. Seffen and by Dr. Ross Corotis, the editor of the JEM.

4) November 6, 2007:

Where's The Paper? Did The BBC And A Cambridge Don Commit Fraud To Cover Up Mass Murder?

Several readers of the latter two stories joined in the effort to obtain further information. Some of them had academic credentials, and their requests stirred Dr. Corotis to action.

Two days later, I was pleased to report on a message from the ASCE, saying that according to their records, Dr. Seffen's paper is scheduled for publication in the February 2008 JEM.

5) November 8, 2007:

WTC 'Collapse' Research Cited In September Is Scheduled To Be Published In February

This was good news for two reasons. It marked the first public commitment from the ASCE to publish the paper. And it provided confirmation of the fact that the paper had not been published when it was cited (and referred to as published) by the BBC and others.

Then another reader -- one with even more impressive credentials -- started digging in a different place, and unearthed a copy of the paper itself.

The following day I posted the first few pages of Seffen's paper (in HTML) on my website

6) November 9, 2007:

Introducing Keith Seffen's "Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis"

I also provided a link to the entire paper (a small PDF file).

http://winterpatriot.pbwiki.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf

True to the description provided by the press release, the paper turned out to be worthless as science, but not entirely meaningless.

7) November 11, 2007:

Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless

Responses to the paper in general and to my review in particular were utterly devastating.

8) November 15, 2007:

Rebuffed! Conspiracy Theory Destroyed By Unsung Internet Heroes

Nearly five months after the author claimed the paper had been published, it was finally published.

9) Saturday, February 2, 2008

Published At Last: Keith Seffen's Reality Reversal Hits The Bigtime

Where's The Paper? Did The BBC And A Cambridge Don Commit Fraud To Cover Up Mass Murder?

[Updated twice, see below]

On September 11, 2007, the BBC published an article based on a press release from the University of Cambridge called "9/11 demolition theory challenged", describing research purportedly done by Cambridge lecturer Keith Seffen.

Dr. Seffen, 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".

The BBC also reported that Dr. Seffen's findings

are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM) is a monthly publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). When a search of the ASCE website turned up no mention of a Keith Seffen, nor any mention of any "Seffen", I began to detect the distinctive smell of manure.

I am familiar with mathematical models and that distinctive smell. I've taught college math; I've designed mathematical modeling software; and once during a debate I "proved", with a very simple series of deceptive "calculations", that zero "equals" infinity. To make a long story short, this "paper" reminded me of that "proof". So I was particularly anxious to see it, and disappointed when I found out it was unavailable.

I also began to suspect the worst: not only that the paper hadn't been published, and was not going to be published, but that perhaps the paper hadn't even been written. After all, unless you can "prove" that zero "equals" infinity, it would be very difficult to construct the "proof" described by the Cambridge press release.

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 to say that Dr. Seffen's 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, a longer and more serious look at the press release from Cambridge. Then I started watching for Dr. Seffen's name on the net, trying not to miss anything published about him or his mathematical model. The results of that survey are published in my most recent article on this subject, "Seffen's Folly: Attempted 9/11 Hoax By Cambridge And The BBC Was A Failure".

This article documents various attempts to obtain clarification from Dr. Seffen, the purported author, and Ross Corotis, the editor of the journal which supposedly published -- or is about to publish -- the paper.

The American Society of Civil Engineers and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics

From the website of the American Society of Civil Engineers we can find ASCE's monthly Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and thence JEM's Current Issue: Table of Contents.

You may note that nothing from Dr. Seffen is listed on this page. We can search the ASCE library from this page; I searched "all issues" for "Seffen".

The search returned:

You were searching for : (Seffen)

No documents found for your query.

The Journal of Engineering Mechanics lists Ross B. Corotis (Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder) as its editor.

Ross Corotis

Ross B. Corotis, editor of the JEM, is also a professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Theoretically, at least, as the editor of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Dr. Corotis should have some interest in what Cambridge and the BBC are saying about the journal he edits. One might expect him to have some knowledge about it, too. Unfortunately Dr. Corotis has chosen not to share any of that knowledge, as indicated by his failure to reply to the email quoted below:

Dear Dr. Corotis

I have read with great interest the article published by BBC last month regarding a mathematical model of the collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers which according to the BBC was written by Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge and published (or to be published) in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

It gets a bit confusing, because the original BBC piece said Seffen's "findings are published" but a later version says his "findings are to be published". I have checked the press release from Cambridge but it is is not clear on this point.

I'm intrigued by the description of Dr. Seffen's analysis and I have been searching the net looking for the paper, but without finding it. Fortunately, I did manage to find a page which says you edit the ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics and another page with your email address(es). I am hoping you might be able to answer a few simple questions:

Has Keith Seffen's paper, "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis" in fact been published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics?

If so, can you tell me the number of the issue in which it appeared and/or the date of publication?

Otherwise, can you tell me whether the paper is scheduled to be published?

And if so, can you tell me the issue and/or date when it will be published?



Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide.

Dr. Corotis didn't see fit to reply to my message. Or maybe he just got busy and forgot.

Why don't you email Dr. Corotis and ask him what he has to say about all this? His email address is [email protected], and I'm sure he'd be glad to hear from you.

Keith Seffen

From Keith Seffen's page at the University of Cambridge website we can find the page that lists Keith Seffen's technical papers. There we can read his offer:

please request if WWW access unavailable

This was good news to me because the most interesting item listed on this page

K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press

does not appear to be available. I suppose that's exactly what it means when it says "in press", but nevertheless I did attempt to take Dr. Seffen up on his offer.

Unfortunately Dr. Seffen failed repeatedly to reply to the following message:

Dear Dr. Seffen

I read with great interest the article published by BBC last month regarding your mathematical model of the collapse of the twin towers. Lately I have been searching the net for your paper but without finding it. Fortunately, I did manage to find a web page where you say: "Technical writings: please request if WWW access unavailable".

I was most heartened to read this and I am hoping you might be able to help me out by answering a few questions.

[1] Has "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis" in fact been published in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics? The press release from Cambridge is not clear on this point.

If so, can you tell me the issue number or date of publication?

Or if not, do you know when or in which issue it will be published?

[2] Has the paper been published anywhere else?

If so, can you tell me where I can find it?

Or if not, would you be willing (and able) to provide a copy of the paper for review?


Thank you very much for your very important work and of course for any assistance you can provide.

I am not the only one who has attempted to contact Dr. Seffen without result.

He also failed to respond to this message

Dear Dr Keith Seffen,

Further to reading the following BBC article... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm,
I have been trying to obtain a copy of your findings which were reported as being published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I am particularly interested in the sources of information used, your methodology of any calculations and any assumptions you may have made.

Could you please provide a link to this information or possibly E-mail me the paper as I cannot locate it on the Journal of Engineering Mechanics website... http://pubs.asce.org/journals/engineeringmechanics/

Your assistance would be much appreciated

and this one:

Attn Dr Keith Seffen,

I understand that Mr Brian McHugh (Mechanical Engineer) and perhaps others have requested that you support your recent hypothesis which has been discussed on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm, and I would like to add my own weight behind this request, as there are many of us who would be very interested in examining your figures.

Of course, it must also be mentioned here that it would appear as if your hypothesis pertains to buildings which have possibly been the subject of hits by aircraft and subsequent fuel induced fires, which, of course, World Trade Centre 7 was not. However, my interpretation of your hypothesis may be in error as I have not examined your figures.

Although I am an accountant by profession, I have studied physics to university level, and am also in my final year with the Open University studying a degree in Mathematics and Computing, so I would study your figures with great interest, as indeed would many in the scientific community whose hypotheses and mathematics seem to be at odds with your own.

I shall be particularly interested in how you have dealt with the loss of mass and energy due to the vast amounts of concrete and other dust created and expelled as the buildings came down. In addition, if the steel supports offered what must have been virtually zero resistance to the floors falling from above, I am very interested in just how you must be explaining why they are not sticking 1,300 feet into the air. Furthermore, I shall be interested in your explanation as to how two of the buildings seemed to collapse from the top down, yet one (WTC7) collapsed from the bottom in a far more conventional way as is usual for buildings the subject of controlled demolitions and which we can see in numerous video clips.

Your early response to the request for your figures would be greatly appreciated.

and this one

Dear Dr Seffen

I have read with interest a report of your investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

How do you explain the following:

1 how the heat in a carbon-based fire could have reached the melting point of steel

2 why molten steel was present at ground zero after the collapse

3 why no steel-framed buildings and none of the buildings hit by aircraft, either before or since 9/11, have resulted in similar destruction of the steel framework, shearing beams, trusses and columns. (In each such case the steel framework has remained standing despite damage to other parts of the buildings)

4 why a downward force of floor collapse should have sheared vertical columns

5 why the Saloman Brothers' building, also known as World Trade Center Seven, collapsed in like manner to the twin towers, despite not having been hit by an aircraft

6 how you can describe these three collapses in a unique manner in one day as a "very ordinary thing to happen"?

and this one

Hi Keith,

I see that you have 'proved' that the total collapse of the South Tower in about 9 seconds is scientifically possible. I really look forward to reading your article.

To me it has always seemed that:

As the collapse was at 'free-fall' speed (near as damn it), all the available P.E. was being converted into K.E. as the tower fell......or did I misunderstand the first law of thermodynamics?

If this is true, and it obviously is.......where did the energy come from to pulverise almost the entire building into to dust before it hit the ground? We all saw this happening didn't we?

Come to that, if the building was pulverised as it fell what constituted the impacting mass that provided the successive 80+ collapses and further pulverisations that took place?

If the whole dust thing was a figment of our collective imaginations and fully rigid real floors fell onto lower floors in a pancake-style collapse how come the Law of Conservation of Momentum forgot to apply itself for this particular 9 seconds of history. Such a collapse could not possibly have taken place at free-fall speed, could it? The collapse would have become successively slower. Estimates I have seen of collapse times applying this universally applicable law vary between 30 and 55 seconds.

Is there some entirely new 'building in a state of shock' principle going on or something? Even if every steel support offered zero resistance to collapse the millisecond it came under the tiniest stress, it is still impossible to see how the 47 massive steel beams that constituted the core of the building were brought down.

Enough already.

It had better be good, Keith.

It would really horrible to see a person make himself an accessory to mass-murder by manufacturing fraudulent bollox designed to assist in the cover-up of a truly evil crime.

I'm sure Keith Seffen would appreciate a few emails and phone calls inquiring as to when and whether his paper will be available for peer review. His email address, as noted on his personal web page, is [email protected]. For those who prefer to phone him, the numbers are +44 (0) 1223 7 64137. To send him a fax, try +44 (0) 1223 3 32662.

Nothing At Stake But The Future Of Mankind

The importance of this issue can hardly be overemphasized.

The Global War on Terror and the emerging National Security State are predicated on the events of 9/11.

We don't have any money for anything anymore because of the vast expense of enhancing National Security, not to mention the additional vast expense of fighting the Global War On Terror. In truth, if not for these two enormous expenditures, wealthy Americans could have had an even more meaningful tax cut.

And on the other hand, as well as going nationally bankrupt, we don't have any rights anymore because if we did, our rights would be a threat to National Security.

The very phrase "National Security" has taken on a double meaning in these dark post-9/11 days. It no longer means "the safety and security of the entire nation and all the people living in it", if it ever meant such a thing.

By the Nixon era it had taken on its primary Bush-era connotation, namely "the continued tenure in office of the president and the continued tenure in the White House of his gang".

Nowadays, in yet another Orwellian degradation of the language, it also means "anything the president wants to do, especially if the people do not want it".

Thus we have unlimited warrantless wiretapping of a most egregious and illegal nature, and no hint that this surveillance program is stopping terrorism or even that it could have stopped the attacks of 9/11 had it been in place at the time -- on the contrary, we have seen many hints that this surveillance program was in place at the time and did nothing to prevent the attacks, nor was it ever designed to do so.

But the president claims this power -- and many others, such as the power to detain indefinitely without charge or hearing, much less trial; the power to decide what is torture and what is not, and therefore the legal cover to practice virtually any sort of inhuman abuse and still say "we don't torture"; the power to decide which laws are to be enforced and how; the power to decide which laws are unconstitutional; even the grandiose and perverse power to have anyone anywhere killed at his command -- and all this is based on the twin pillars of "National Security" and the "Global War On Terror".

We've killed at least a million people so far, and left millions more homeless -- many of them stateless! And the Global War On Terror, although the name continues to change, seems set to last forever. Half a dozen countries are now on the verge of being engulfed: I write often of Pakistan and others write even more often of Iran, and there's still Syria, and Lebanon, and Turkey, and of course the six-pointed star in the middle of it all.

There is so much going on that we would have trouble keeping it all straight even if we were getting the truth about everything from our government and the media, but of course we aren't. We're getting more lies to justify more wars, and more killing, and more suffering, and eventually it's bound to result in more blowback, more terrorism, and an even more expensive, and more restrictive, National Security state.

And all this is predicated on 9/11, or more specifically, it's all predicated on the official story of 9/11. What if, as many people believe, that story is false, and not only false but deliberately false, concocted and injected into the national narrative expressly in order to justify the National Security State as well as the Global War on Terror?

So ... Where's The Paper?

If Keith Seffen and the BBC and Cambridge and Ross Corotis and the JEM are all collaborating on such an obvious fraud as pretending there's a paper when there isn't, then the world should know about it, in my view.

If there is such a paper, then where is it? Has it been published or not? Is it scheduled to be published or not? Is it available for review? All these questions have been ignored. In other words, there's your answer.

If there is such a paper, then we should be able to see it and review it and decide on the basis of the math whether or not it makes sense, whether or not the collapse it describes is plausible, and equally important, whether or not the collapse it describes corresponds to what we know about the events of the day.

And if there is no paper, are we looking at accessories-after-the-fact in a case of mass murder?

Nearly two months ago, I knew nothing about the process by which scientific papers are published. Then I had a good long talk with my science adviser. He's a friend of long standing, with a PhD in Biology; he's had some papers published and he works in the Biology Department of a university where he knows a lot of other biologists who are having papers published, and he gave me some insight into the process.

Here's the gist of it: If a journal has accepted a paper for publication, it will tell the author either the issue number or the date of the issue in which the paper is to be published. Up until that point, there are no guarantees. The paper may have been submitted, it may be under consideration, it may have been rejected, it may have been sent back to the author for revision (and in that case it needs to be reviewed again after it is revised), and in none of these cases will a date of publication be established. How could it? The paper has to be satisfactory before it can be scheduled for publication.

So, if the paper has been published, when was it published and where is it? And if the paper is to be published, when will it be published? These are the basic questions to which both Dr. Seffen and Dr. Corotis chose not to respond.

It's a classic propaganda technique: tell the lie once and then never mention it again. Sometimes in politics this approach works well. But in science, if someone ignores relevant questions, the obvious implication is that he has no good answers.

In other words, in this case, we seem to be looking at accessories-after-the-fact. They may not want to deal with the questions, but the world deserves answers.

Ross Corotis:
email: [email protected]
ASCE journals
email: [email protected]

Keith Seffen:
email: [email protected]
phone: +44 (0) 1223 7 64137
fax: +44 (0) 1223 3 32662

~~~

UPDATE 1:
(November 8, 2007): We now have evidence that Dr. Seffen's paper has been written and is scheduled for publication.
WTC 'Collapse' Research Cited In September Is Scheduled To Be Published In February

UPDATE 2:
(November 9, 2007) And now we have the paper
Introducing Keith Seffen's "Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis"

Seffen's Folly: Attempted 9/11 Hoax By Cambridge And The BBC Was A Failure

(Updated twice below)

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.

On the other hand, there wasn't very much coverage.

Keith Seffen In The News

Aside from the BBC, no major news agency was taken in. A Google News search for "Keith Seffen" returned only 19 matches. Nothing from the AP, nothing from UPI, nothing in the New York Times or the Washington Post, no ABC, no CNN -- not even FOX would touch this one.

But it did see some life in a few unexpected places.

It turned out that the confusion over whether the paper had been published predated the BBC; it was in the press release from the University of Cambridge: 9/11 “conspiracy” theories challenged by Cambridge research

The press release was carried in its entirety by PhysOrg dot com: 9/11 'conspiracy' theories challenged by Cambridge research

In addition, Daily India and New Kerala carried what appeared to be a shorter version of the BBC piece: Cambridge engineer challenges 9/11 demolition theory (with my emphasis here and elsewhere):

London, Sept.11: A Cambridge University engineer has challenged the conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks in the United States. According to Dr Keith Seffen, once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

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

Dr. Seffen's data says this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell and claimed the lives of over 2,800 people in New York.

Dr. Seffen says he was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design. His findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Anthea Lipsett of Education Guardian dot CO dot UK stuck close to the press release with "Twin towers research refutes 9/11 conspiracy theories", but threw in a few new twists. I reproduce her article in full:

A Cambridge University academic has shattered conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks that took place in New York six years ago today with a new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre.

Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in Cambridge's engineering department, used established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began it was destined to be rapid and total.

While the causes that initiated the collapse of the towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.

Conspiracy theorists claim US government involvement in the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings. They suggest "controlled demolition" was the reason behind the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapse of both towers.

But according to Dr Seffen's analysis of engineering principles, the way the towers collapsed was "quite ordinary and natural".

"The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed," he said.

"It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."

Dr Seffen's research showed many studies focused on the phase just before collapse begins.

"They rightly show that the combination of fire and impact damage severely impaired those parts of the building close to where the aircraft hit to hold the weight of the building above. The top parts were bound to fall down but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts," he said.

His new analysis, which will be published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, calculates the average strength of a given storey of the building away from the impact area as it was being squashed flat.

This allowed him to define the "residual capacity" of the building, which he then used to develop a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, simulating the successive squashing of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified.

From this, Dr Seffen predicted that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited and once collapse had started it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down.

This shows that the speed of the collapse as actually occurred was consistent with a "pancaking" effect caused by the dual impacts of the planes. As such, the mechanics of this pancaking process were exactly the same as a controlled demolition, but starting from the top and moving downwards, he said.

Very interesting, don't you think?

Cambridge Evening News ran this item: Lecturer dismisses twin towers blast theory

CONSPIRACY claims that explosives brought down the twin towers have been dismissed by a Cambridge University lecturer.

Dr Keith Seffen says once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

A popular 9/11 conspiracy theory proposes the buildings came down because of explosives placed inside - much like a "controlled demolition".

Dr Seffen, a lecturer in engineering and a fellow of Corpus Christi College, set out to explain why the towers fell as they did. His findings are reported in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have focused on the initial impacts of the aircraft. The general conclusions were that damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down but it is not clear why the undamaged building offered little resistance to these falling parts.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building - the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

Dr Seffen said: "One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath bringing the towers down so quickly."

Business Weekly ran a piece by Sam Fountain (available as PDF here, and mirrored in HTML here) which rehashed the Cambridge press release, with the following introduction:

Conspiracy theories surrounding the World Trade Centre disaster have been countered by a new mathematical analysis of the phenomenon by a Cambridge University academic.

Dr Keith Seffen, senior lecturer in the structures group in the Department of Engineering, has published a paper which draws on established engineering models to demonstrate that the collapse sequence of the Twin Towers following the terrorist strike was "quite ordinary and natural."

The report, which is due to be published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, further deflates the speculation that continues to surround the catastrophe, focusing on the seemingly orderly manner in which both of the towers collapsed.

... and so on. I found it interesting how this article reports (in the second paragraph) that the paper has been published, and (one paragraph later) that it hasn't.

Elsewhere in the news, Sam Toy at Building dot CO dot UK wrote: Twin Tower designers praised for resilient design:

Structural expert praises buildings for exceeding shock impact specifications, saving lives

Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in structures at Cambridge University, has applauded the designers of the World Trade Center for creating a building that lasted longer than expected after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In a new report, Dr Seffen has revealed that the Twin Towers were never designed to withstand such impacts. He said: “It is widely acknowledged that the impacts of September 11 were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings.”

"The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected.”

The Towers were designed with the potential for a plane crash in mind, but not a deliberate one with as much speed and fuel as was the case on 9/11.

He also commented on the collapse sequence, which has been surrounded by conspiracy theories. He said: “In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural."

Several reports very similar to this were published elsewhere, though none was credited to Sam Toy. Here's one from the Press Association: Design of Twin Towers praised

A British structural engineer says that mathematics proved the Twin Towers were bound to collapse after each was hit by a fuel-laden airliner travelling at high speed.

Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in the structures group at Cambridge University's engineering department, praised the designers of the World Trade Centre for creating buildings which stood up as long as they did after the 9/11 attacks.

Dr Seffen, who revealed the conclusions of a new scientific analysis on the sixth anniversary of the terrorist atrocity in New York, said the towers were never designed to withstand such "extraordinary impacts".

"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural," he said.

"The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed.

"It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11 were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings.

"The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."

Another very similar report came from Channel 4 News, UK: Towers built 'to asborb plane impact'

The World Trade Center was designed with an accidental aircraft impact but 9/11 was very different, says a UK engineer.

A British structural engineer says that mathematics proved the Twin Towers were bound to collapse after each was hit by a fuel-laden airliner travelling at high speed - writes PA.

Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in the structures group at Cambridge University's engineering department, praised the designers of the World Trade Centre for creating buildings which stood up as long as they did after the 9/11 attacks.

Dr Seffen, who revealed the conclusions of a new scientific analysis on the sixth anniversary of the terrorist atrocity in New York, said the towers were never designed to withstand such "extraordinary impacts".

"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural," he said.

"The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed.

"It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11 were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings.

"The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."

You may notice that none of these news providers offered any hint that they were speaking of an unpublished "scientific paper", although Channel 4 added this wonderful disclaimer:

These news feeds are provided by an independent third party and Channel 4 is not responsible or liable to you for the same.

Not liable to you! That's a good one! (And it's my emphasis in the quoted text, above and below).

Dexigner dot com appears to have taken the same Sam Toy piece and cut it down to three sentences. Twin Tower Designers Praised for Resilient Design

Dr Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in structures at Cambridge University, has applauded the designers of the World Trade Center for creating a building that lasted longer than expected after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In a new report, Dr Seffen has revealed that the Twin Towers were never designed to withstand such impacts.

He said: "It is widely acknowledged that the impacts of September 11 were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings."

A few other articles mentioned Seffen's "paper" in the context of other stories.

One such story was published in Zambia's The Sowetan as "‘World more dangerous now than on 9/11’" and in The Mercury, also of Zambia, where the headline read:'World more dangerous now'. It also appeared in the Inquirer, of the Phillipines, under the title "World more dangerous now than on 9/11 -- ex UN army chief "

Here's the relevant excerpt:

[A] British engineering expert praised the designers of the World Trade Centre for creating buildings which stood up for as long as they did after being hit by planes.

"It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11 were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings," said Keith Seffen of Cambridge University.

"The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."

This article -- like a few of the others I have mentioned -- not only neglects to mention that Dr. Seffen's paper remains unpublished; it also just barely hints at any of the controversial aspects of the paper.

The only other piece published by a Google News site which mentioned Keith Seffen and his "mathematical analysis" was written by Paul Craig Roberts. In contrast to all the other articles I've mentioned above, this one was skeptical of the official story of 9/11, but it accepted without question the BBC's original report of the paper's having been published.

The Roberts piece was called "9/11 Explains the Impotence of the Anti-war Movement" and it appeared at VDARE, as well as IndyBay, Creators dot com, Countercurrents and Online Journal. The relevant excerpt from that piece is here:

Recognition of the inadequacy of the official account of the collapse of the twin towers is widespread in the scientific and technical community. One of the most glaring failures in the official account is the lack of an explanation of the near free-fall speed at which the buildings failed once the process began. Some scientists and engineers have attempted to bolster the official account with explanations of how this might happen in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolitions.

One recent example is the work of Cambridge University engineer, Dr. Keith Seffen, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and reported by the BBC on September 11, 2007. Dr. Seffen constructed a mathematical model that concludes that once initiation of failure had begun, progressive collapse of the structures would be rapid.
...

September 11 doubters are [...] shouted down as “conspiracy theorists.” But if the government’s story has to be improved by outside experts in order to be plausible, then it is not irrational or kooky to doubt the official explanation.

And that was it!

That was the full extent of the news coverage, and it's not very broad, considering the importance of the topic; on the other hand only two articles (one from the Guardian, the other from Business Weekly, which contradicted itself) admitted that the paper hadn't been published, not counting the BBC's piece, which was changed after the error had been pointed out by a blogger.

Seffen On The Blogs

Many blogs reproduced the BBC piece verbatim without comment; it seems fair to assume they accepted the BBC's report and saw it as another nail in the coffin of the "conspiracy theorists".

A few other bloggers actually wrote about the subject; the most revealing of these was Ed Morrissey of the very popular Captain's Quarters blog, who wrote: Bad News For The Truthers

One of the more enduring myths of the 9/11 truther movement involves the rapid collapse of the Twin Towers after being hit by the commercial jets six years ago today. The conspiracy theorists insist that a self-initiated collapse could not have occurred, and even if it did, it could not have progressed so rapidly. Their theory has government agents spending two weeks in the building, planting explosives without disturbing the offices in the building, and waiting for that special day when a couple of planes hitting the towers would give them an excuse to demolish them.

Instead, their theories on the impossibility of collapse just got demolished at Cambridge:

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...

...

Engineers have told us for years that no conspiracy was needed to explain the collapse. Burning jet fuel created a firestorm that weakened the steel trusses of the floors above the impact site, and that led to the collapse of the upper structure onto the lower portion. That hit with enough force to start a progressive collapse, which as we saw took almost no time to complete. Dr. Seffen has now supplied us with the mathematics of the collapse, answering the silly free-fall argument offered in these forums, but NIST had already done much of this work before now.

Will this convince the Truthers? Of course not. People who think that Galileo's great contribution to science was postulating the world was round have no real affinity for science or research, but instead for imaginary cabals, innuendo, and paranoia. The truth is out there -- at Popular Mechanics, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and NIST. It's not in Alex Jones' world.

Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard posted a piece called "Destined To Be Rapid And Total" in which he quoted from the BBC's original version ("The findings are published..."), threw in some material from Captain's Quarters and added this coda of his own:

My own opinions on the "truthers" should be pretty well known by regular readers. There are people in that group who know full well that they are distorting facts, there are others who are easily led and there are the outright stupid. (And yes, that was fully intended to be as insulting as possible.) Collectively, the entire group wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up and introduced itself.
...

This analysis won't penetrate their little fantasy world where they are the brave and fearless heroes. The unscrupulous, mendacious ones will continue to make a living off the gullible ones. And they'll trumpet their echoes back and forth to one another endlessly, jostling for a place on the melted steely knoll with Rosie.

Another blogger, writing at 911 Truthiness, was even more direct in "Cambridge Takes on the Truthers".
Here's the relevant excerpt:

The school of Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking and some of the worlds top scientist and engineers has weighed in why the WTC fell and continued to collapse. As no surprise they saw nothing to the controlled demolition conspiracy theorist claims.

It’s only enforces what I have always said, the brightest and the best are NOT the inside job types, that spot is reserved and rightfully so for the lowlife side of the world. It amazes me that truthers being made up of the most dim-witted of society get upset when we laugh at them and point out the obvious lunacy of what they are selling. It’s like dealing with creationist, they are dumb and are completely determined to stay ignorant just so they can keep their well loved fantasy going.

I will be sure to post a link to the paper when it comes available.

I trust Mr. Truthiness will post that link just as soon as possible. And while he earns no marks for the abusive tone of his writing, he does deserve credit for noting -- at least implicitly -- that the paper had not been published.

Signs of the Times also noticed this very inconvenient fact:

But hey, why not pay a visit to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics to read the good Dr's. findings? Here's the link as posted by the BBC, can you find Dr. Seffen's work? No, neither can we.

But few others seemed to grasp the importance of Cambridge and the BBC having falsely claimed that the paper had been published: we can find further discussion in this thread from Rigorous Intuition dot ca and this thread at Nine Eleven dot co dot uk.

Even now, nearly two months after the press release, there is still no paper to review, no indication that it is about to be published, and -- let's be clear -- no evidence that any such paper has ever been written.

~~~

UPDATE 1:
(November 8, 2007): We now have evidence that Dr. Seffen's paper has been written and is scheduled for publication.

WTC 'Collapse' Research Cited In September Is Scheduled To Be Published In February

UPDATE 2:
(November 9, 2007) And now we have the paper
Introducing Keith Seffen's "Progressive Collapse Of The WTC: A Simple Analysis"

Protecting Democracy : Hundreds Of Pakistani Lawyers And Activists Arrested As Clampdown Continues

The military clampdown on Pakistani politics continues. At least five hundred lawyers, human rights activists and political opposition members have been arrested. All independent news media are being suppressed. The government has declared the Constitution "in abeyance" until further notice, and it's all been done by a General-President in the name of protecting democracy.

The geometry of this cynical ploy is quite simple. There's a small band of radicals on one end and a small band of militarists on the other. They are connected in many ways. If properly aligned, such a combination can crush a huge secular progressive majority in the middle. And that's what's happening in Pakistan at the moment.

I've been having horrible internet problems and I would like to do more with this post but it doesn't seem likely ... in the meantime I'll give you what I've got:

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

About 500 opposition party workers, lawyers and human rights activists were arrested Sunday as the government of General Pervez Musharraf tried to consolidate its control after imposing emergency rule.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was under fire at home and abroad Sunday after declaring an indefinite state of emergency that the West is calling a blow to democracy.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Planned elections in Pakistan could be delayed by up to a year after President Pervez Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule, the country's PM says.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Pakistan's government on Sunday continued a nationwide crackdown on the political opposition, the media and the courts, one day after President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule and suspended the constitution in a bid to save his job.

Police throughout the country raided the homes of opposition party leaders and activists, arresting hundreds. Top lawyers were also taken into custody, and at the offices of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in the eastern city of Lahore, 70 activists were detained. Journalists covering the raid had their equipment confiscated by police, and were ordered off the premises.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

Pakistani police arrested opposition politicians, including the leader of exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's party, as part a crackdown following President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency, Reuters reported Sunday.

In a move that sparked outcries from political opponents and the international community on Saturday, Musharraf also replaced the chief justice of the country's Supreme Court and had authorities round up opposition figues, cut phone lines in the capital Islamabad and took all but state television off the air.

Emergency Restrictions

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

The order effectively suspends the country's constitution before a crucial Supreme Court ruling on Musharraf's future as president. The high court has been hearing constitutional arguments against his re-election last month.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Emergency Restrictions
Constitutional safeguards on life and liberty curtailed
Police get wide powers of arrest
Suspects can be denied access to lawyers
Freedom of movement restricted
Private TV stations taken off air
New rules curtail media coverage of suicide bombings or militant activity
Chief justice replaced, others made to swear oath of loyalty
Supreme Court banned from rescinding emergency order

Official Justifications

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Musharraf announced the emergency decree, under which the Constitution was suspended and most of the Supreme Court was dismissed, on state-run television just after midnight. In a 45-minute speech, the president said he had declared the emergency to limit terrorist attacks and "preserve the democratic transition that I initiated eight years back." He did not say how long the state of emergency would be maintained.

The general, dressed in civilian clothes, quoted the U.S. president Abraham Lincoln, citing his suspension of some rights during the American Civil War as justification for the state of emergency in Pakistan.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Musharraf made the declaration Saturday in reaction to what he said was judicial activism by the state's high court. Musharraf has been tussling with the Supreme Court since at least March, when he removed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, citing judicial misconduct.
...
Pakistani Information Minister Tariq Azim Khan said the move -- which suspends the constitution and expands Musharraf's powers -- was necessary because "things had gone totally haywire."

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Gen Musharraf says he declared the emergency to stop Pakistan "committing suicide", because the country was in a crisis caused by militant violence and an unruly judiciary

The moves came as the Supreme Court was due to rule on the legality of Gen Musharraf's October election victory.
...
In a TV address on Saturday evening, Gen Musharraf explained his decision, saying the current situation had forced him into making "some very painful decisions".
...
"Extremists are roaming around freely in the country, and they are not scared of law-enforcement agencies," the president said.

"Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan and I cannot allow this country to commit suicide."

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

In a national address Saturday, Musharraf insisted his actions were necessary to curb a rise in extremism in Pakistan, as well as judicial paralysis.

"I suspect that Pakistan's sovereignty is in danger unless timely action is taken," said Musharraf, who was wearing civilian clothes and spoke firmly and calmly.

"Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization . Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan and I cannot allow this country to commit suicide."

Activists Arrested

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

About 500 opposition party workers, lawyers and human rights activists were arrested Sunday as the government of General Pervez Musharraf tried to consolidate its control after imposing emergency rule.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

As part of the state of emergency, the Pakistani government has a list of about 1,500 opposition figures, mostly activists and lawyers to be rounded up, according to police sources and witnesses.
...
The head of Pakistan's human rights commission, Asma Jahangir, said she, too, was under house arrest and that Musharraf "has lost his marbles."

Khan, the information minister, said the house arrests are "a very temporary measure" and were targeting "people who have been causing law and order situations."

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Rights have been suspended, media has been restricted and hundreds of people arrested under the emergency decree.

Mr Aziz said 400 to 500 "preventative arrests" had been made so far, and said the emergency, imposed by Gen Musharraf on Saturday, would last for "as long as is necessary".

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Up to 500 opposition activists had been arrested in the last 24 hours, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Sunday.

Media Restrictions

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

About a dozen privately run television news stations remained off the air, and international channels, including the BBC and CNN, were suspended. In the city of Lahore, police officers armed with tear gas tried to break up a meeting of regime opponents at the headquarters of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission. They took dozens of people away in police vans.
...
The director of the private television channel Aaj TV, Wamiq Zuberi, said a magistrate accompanied by five vans of gun-toting police officers showed up at the channel's studios here Saturday night. They wanted to confiscate the channel's outdoor broadcasting van, Zuberi said. But the magistrate did not have a warrant, and the workers at the studio stood their ground, forcing the officials to leave, Zuberi said.

Aziz, the prime minister, said Sunday that the government planned to work on "a code of conduct" for broadcasters.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Tough new media restrictions are controlling the news available throughout Pakistan: all non-state TV stations and some radio channels, including international services such as BBC World TV, have been taken off air.

Independent newspapers have been allowed to continue publishing, but Gen Musharraf's decree severely limits what they can report.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Independent television stations remained off the air Sunday, and Pakistani journalists said they were unsure when their broadcasts would be restored. One prominent news anchor, Kashif Abbasi, said the government was pressuring the stations to sign a new code of conduct that would impose severe restrictions on what the stations could report. Abbasi said journalists would resist the move. "Do we have a choice? We can't sit there and report, but not talk about the president, the prime minister, the government or its policies," he said.

The only televised news Sunday came from the state-run channel, which ran clips from Musharraf's speech to the nation Saturday night in which he blamed terrorists and activist judges for forcing him to declare emergency rule. State-run TV also broadcast a critical segment on media restrictions in arch-rival India.

Police / Security / Military

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Local newspapers and key opposition leader Benazir Bhutto accused Gen Musharraf of bringing in martial law without formally declaring it.

But Pakistan's attorney general said the prime minister and parliament remained in place and the civilian government would continue to function.
...
Small protests have started in the capital, Islamabad, where police and security forces are on the streets surrounding key sites.
...
After a calm start to Sunday, a few dozen people staged a brief protest near the parliament building in Islamabad before police moved in to break up the gathering.

Several people were dragged away and arrested, reports the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan, in the city.

More protests are expected throughout the rest of the day, he adds, with police appearing ready to use force against unauthorised demonstrations.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

The police presence in the capital, Islamabad, remained heavy Sunday, and an air of tense calm prevailed over much of the city.

Benazir Bhutto

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Bhutto spent Sunday at her residence in Karachi. Leaders of her party, the Pakistan People's Party, said she would fly to Islamabad to hold talks with other opposition parties about how to proceed. But Bhutto did not show up here.

In interviews with foreign television channels, Bhutto, who returned to Pakistan after years in exile in October with the backing of the United States, appealed for free and fair elections. But sympathizers to her cause said her options for influencing the situation appeared limited.

Organizing large protests under emergency rule, and after the bomb attack on her arrival procession Oct. 18 that killed 140 people, would be difficult, said Najem Sethi, the editor in chief of The Daily Times.

"Verbally she will be very critical," Sethi said. "But she is not going to participate in protests. She's going to make a token representation. Behind the scenes she will work with the government for elections as soon as possible."

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Ms Bhutto, who recently returned to Pakistan from self-imposed exile, flew back to Karachi from a trip abroad upon hearing news of Gen Musharraf's decision.

She confirmed that troops were not surrounding her Karachi home, contrary to some earlier reports, and laid out her demands for the holding free and fair elections.

"We the political parties are calling for the restoration of the constitution, and for the holding of the elections under an independent election commission," she told the BBC.

There is no word yet whether she plans to enter dialogue with the president or to lead opposition to his rule.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

In an interview with CBC News late Saturday from Karachi, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto accused Musharraf of taking Pakistan away from democracy and "turning the clock back towards dictatorship."

"If you really want to get rid of extremism, you have to get rid of dictatorship," Bhutto said. "It's an unfortunate day in our country's history."

Bhutto, who was in Dubai when Musharraf issued the order, recently ended eight years in exile and has been in talks with Musharraf's camp about countering Islamic extremism by coming together to form a possible pro-Western alliance after parliamentary elections, which were slated for January.
...
Bhutto, who held a press conference at her residence in Karachi after her arrival in Pakistan, said she would hold talks with other opposition parties to "build the domestic pressure" against Musharraf to reverse the decision and hold the elections on schedule.

Other Opposition

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Among the hundreds of people arrested since the declaration was Javed Hashmi, acting head of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League.

Gen Musharraf, he said as he was taken away, would pay a price for his decision to restrict freedoms.

"Musharraf's days are numbered. Time has come to end the political role of the army."

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Ahsan Iqbal, spokesman for an opposition party led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, said up to 1,000 activists from his party had been arrested, including top leaders. Iqbal said Musharraf was "guilty of treason" for suspending the constitution.

Responding to Secretary of State Rice's statement on reviewing aid to Pakistan, Sharif called for even more U.S. action.

"Just saying that we will review the aid is not enough. I think the Western countries, especially the United States of America, must condemn this in the strongest terms and must urge Musharraf to reverse all that he's done yesterday," Sharif said in a telephone interview with Sky News.

Sharif is in Saudi Arabia, after being arrested and deported there in September shortly after arriving in Pakistan from exile.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

In September, Sharif was deported only hours after he returned to his home country after seven years of exile after being ousted by Musharraf in a 1999 coup.

"Musharraf's days are numbered. Time has come to end the political role of the army," Reuters quoted Javed Hashmi, acting president of Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League, as telling reporters before being whisked away by police in the central city of Multan.
...
Another opposition politician, former cricketer Imran Khan, told the BBC he had been placed under house arrest.

Lawyers

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Around the country, at least 80 lawyers were arrested in an apparent bid to head off demonstrations that lawyers' groups had planned for Monday.
...
A government spokesman, Tariq Aziz Khan, said the arrests of lawyers were "preventive measures" taken because of a "threat to future law and order."

In the spring, lawyers spearheaded opposition to Musharraf after he fired the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The Supreme Court later reinstated Chaudhry, who continued to irritate Musharraf. By the end of last week, the general seemed unsure that the Supreme Court would rule favorably on his re-election.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Pakistani lawyers announced they would strike on Monday in protest at the president's decision.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Asma Jahangir, a leading human rights attorney, reported in an e-mail that she had been ordered to stay confined to her home for 90 days. She called it ironic that that Musharraf "had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires."

Opposition groups did not mass any large protests on Sunday, but they vowed to do so later in the week.

"Lawyers and civil society will challenge the government," Jahangir wrote, "and the scene is likely to get uglier."

Supreme Court

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Musharraf accused the Supreme Court of releasing 61 men who he said were under investigation for terrorist activities. "Judicial activism," he said, had demoralized the security forces, hurt the fight against terrorism and slowed the spread of democracy. "Obstacles are being created in the way of democratic process," he said, "I think for vested, personal interests, against the interest of the country."
...
Musharraf acted just days before the Supreme Court was due to decide on the legality of his re-election on Oct. 6.

Among the dozens of lawyers arrested was the president of the Supreme Court bar association, Aitzaz Ahsan, who has opposed Musharraf in legal arguments and in political protests, said Ayesha Tammy Haq, an Islamabad lawyer.

"If you want to take the country away from Talibanization, these are the people who can do it, the secular middle class," Haq said as she waited Sunday at the Adiala jail in Rawalpindi to see Ahsan.
...
Under the emergency declaration, the Supreme Court justices were ordered to take an oath to abide by a "provisional constitutional order" that replaces the country's existing Constitution. Seven justices rejected the order Saturday night, according to an aide to Chaudhry.

Hours later, the state-run news media reported that three justices generally seen as supporting Musharraf had taken an oath to uphold the emergency measure. And it was announced that Chaudhry had been replaced by a pro-government member of the Supreme Court bench, Abdul Hamid Doger, as chief justice.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

The Supreme Court -- which reinstated Chaudhry in July in what many called a political blow to Musharraf -- was amid hearing arguments from opposition leaders who said that Musharraf's victory in the October elections should be overturned because Musharraf was not eligible to serve a third term while heading the country's military.
...
Chaudhry is one of seven Supreme Court judges placed under house arrest after the court declared Musharraf's state of emergency illegal under the constitution.

Shortly after the court ruling, troops went to Chaudhry's office and told him he was fired, the judge's office said. Massive protests ensued after Chaudhry was removed from the bench earlier this year.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Following the announcement of emergency rule, the country's chief justice was replaced and the Supreme Court surrounded by troops.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and eight other judges refused to endorse the emergency order, declaring it unconstitutional, resulting in Mr Chaudhry's dismissal.

The Supreme Court was to decide whether Gen Musharraf was eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

Fears were growing in the government that the court could rule against Gen Musharraf.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

At the residence of the former chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, hundreds of security officers kept visitors away. Chaudhry was fired by Musharraf on Saturday, along with at least six others Supreme Court judges.

Out of 17 judges on the bench, five agreed to take an oath to uphold Musharraf's new provisional constitution. The government pressured several others Sunday to sign the oath, or lose their jobs.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

Seven of the 18 Supreme Court judges immediately condemned the emergency measures.

"Under the constitutional order, judges will have to swear allegiance to the emergency powers," freelance journalist Graham Usher told CBC News. "Any judge who does not do that can be dismissed."

Justice Hameed Dogar replaced Iftekhar Chaudhry as the country's chief justice. Musharraf tried to remove Chaudhry from the bench in March over alleged abuse of authority, but the court declared the suspension illegal and reinstated him in July after a series of street protests.

Chaudhry has been outspoken in defending the independence of the judiciary.

The Future Of Democracy

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Sunday at a news conference that new parliamentary elections, which had been expected in January, could be "up to a year" away. He said that as many as 500 opposition activists had been arrested nationwide.

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was under fire at home and abroad Sunday after declaring an indefinite state of emergency that the West is calling a blow to democracy.
...
[Information Minister Tariq Azim] Khan said parliamentary elections slated for January have been postponed indefinitely, but Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said later no such decision had been made.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

Shaukat Aziz told a news conference that the government remained committed to the democratic process.

But he said parliament might change the date of elections planned for January, and gave no end date for the emergency.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

[Prime Minister Shaukat] Aziz said the extraordinary measures would remain in place "as long as it is necessary." Aziz said parliamentary elections could be postponed up to a year, but no decision has been made regarding a delay.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

It is not known whether the state of emergency will delay or cancel the elections.

American Reactions

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

The U.S. secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, joining other foreign governments in expressing concern about Pakistan's decision to suspend its Constitution, said Washington was reviewing billions of dollars in aid to the country, The Associated Press reported. Britain also said it was examining its aid package.
...
Musharraf summoned foreign diplomats, including the U.S. ambassador, Anne Patterson, to a meeting Sunday to explain the reasons for his action, according to diplomats.

The emergency rule came into force less than 24 hours after Musharraf met here with the senior U.S. military commander in the region, Admiral William Fallon, who warned the Pakistani leader that U.S. military assistance would be in jeopardy if he introduced martial law, diplomats said.

Soon after Musharraf's emergency decree, Washington officials said it was unlikely that the military aid would be cut.
...
Rice, speaking to reporters in Jerusalem on Sunday, also urged Musharraf to call elections and repeated U.S. displeasure at emergency rule, which she advised against in two telephone calls to him on Wednesday, news agencies reported.

"Obviously we are going to have to review the situation with aid, in part because we have to see what may be triggered by certain statutes," Rice said.

The United States has provided about $11 billion to Pakistan since 2001, when Musharraf made a strategic shift to be an ally with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice said Washington would review its aid in light of the new emergency measures, though the Pentagon said earlier that the emergency rule would not affect its military support to Pakistan.

"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Rice told reporters traveling with her in the Middle East. "We just have to review the situation."

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

"It is in the best interest of Pakistan and in the best interest of the Pakistani people for there to be a prompt return to a constitutional course, for there to be an affirmation that elections will be held for a new parliament, and for all parties to act with restraint in what is obviously a very difficult situation," she said.

Later in the day, Rice said the U.S. would review its financial aid package to Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terror. She conceded the matter would be complicated because much of the aid goes to counterterrorism.

BBC : Emergency may delay Pakistan poll

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Washington is reviewing the aid which it gives to Pakistan in the wake of Gen Musharraf's decision.

"Obviously we are going to have to review the situation with aid, in part because we have to see what may be triggered by certain statutes," Ms Rice said.

In recent years Gen Musharraf has been a key ally in Washington's war on terror and has received about $10bn in aid since 2001.

"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Ms Rice said, adding that that complicated the issue.

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday that the United States would review its $150 million a month assistance program to Pakistan in response to Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule.

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

"The U.S. has made clear it does not support extraconstitutional measures because those measures take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

However, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Musharraf's declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, which Morrell called "a very important ally in the war on terror."

Other Foreign Reactions

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Javier Solana, foreign policy chief for the 27-nation European Union, also implored Musharraf to keep the January elections on track. Solana told The Associated Press he realizes Pakistan is facing difficulties in its political and security situations, but "any deviation from the general democratic process cannot be a solution."

Solana, in a statement, urged Musharraf "to abide by the rule of law, notably to respect the boundaries of the constitution" and asked that political parties show "restraint to facilitate a quick return to normalcy."

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also expressed concerns about the state of emergency, saying Pakistan's future "rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law to achieve the goals of stability, development and countering terrorism."

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

The international advocacy group Human Rights Watch issued a statement condemning the move as "an appalling attack on human rights defenders."

Other Pakistani Reactions

CNN : West urges Pakistan to lift martial law, return to democracy

Pakistanis reacted to the country's turmoil Sunday with a mixture of anger and apathy, according to AP.

Said factory worker Faisal Sayed, "Pakistan is bad because of one person: Musharraf. He has ruined our country."

But day laborer Togul Khan, 38, had a more cynical outlook as he waited for work on an Islamabad street corner, AP reported.

"What's the point of talking about this?" he asked. "The politicians have lifted Pakistan into the sky and spun it round before bringing it crashing down to earth -- but nothing will change for us."

WaPo : Political Crackdown Continues in Pakistan

Near the Supreme Court, a small group of Pakistanis gathered in hopes of starting a rally against Musharraf. But police ordered the crowd to disperse, citing a ban on public gatherings of more than three people in one place.

"We're in despair and we don't know what to do," said Sofia Shakil, an Islamabad resident. "Just when things looked like they couldn't get any worse . . . "

Later in the afternoon, a group of several dozen protesters shouting "We want democracy now!" attempted to march to Chaudhry's house. But the police blocked their path, and began to make arrests.

"We don't need martial law imposed on us," said Laila Ashraf, a protester. "We need to assert our rights."

CBC : Opposition politicians, lawyers rounded up in Pakistan: report

Ottawa officially condemned the crackdown urged its government to reinstate judges and allow free elections.

In a statement released Saturday, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier called for all sides to refrain from violence and respect human rights. The Foreign Affairs Department also issued an official travel warning advising Canadians against all travel to Pakistan.

Taliban / al Qaeda

IHT : Pakistan rounds up opposition

the general tailored his decree to emphasize the necessity of continuing the fight against Islamic extremists sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.