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 corotis@colorado.edu, 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 kas14@cam.ac.uk. 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: corotis@colorado.edu
ASCE journals
email: journal-submissions@asce.org

Keith Seffen:
email: kas14@cam.ac.uk
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"