Both the Guardian & BBC jumped gleefully on the bandwagon, releasing articles the same day, variously trumpeting:
"Twin towers research refutes 9/11 conspiracy theories" (Guardian - "education" section) &
"9/11 demolition theory challenged" (BBC - "science" section).
Originally claiming that the article had already been published in the ASCE's "Journal of Engineering & Mechanics", the BBC was later forced to edit the article when Winterpatriot pointed out that this was not the case at all. In actual fact, the article was published only this month, February 2008.
Even before its official publication, Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI issued a rebuttal, and a formal request to the Head of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge to have the paper corrected without delay - Click to view attachment - this is the .pdf of his letter, dated January 30th 2008, which begins:
QUOTE
"I formally request you have the paper corrected without delay because it defies several key laws of physics, i.e. conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and how the heck Dr Seffen can claim all the floors offered the same flimsy resistance when each had different construction characteristics is totally beyond any logic, the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors."
Funnily enough, both the BBC and Guardian remain strangely silent on this new development. The BBC probably are probably hoping that Mr Blacker will just go away if they close their eyes long enough - he's planning to sue them for their "Conspiracy Files" 9/11 hitpiece from 18th Feb last year. The Cambridge Engineering department also makes no comment.Sources: Winterpatriot.blogspot.com; 9/11Blogger.com; Truthring.org