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

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:


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, the truly 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 any more because 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, 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 human abuse and still say "we don't torture"; the power to decide which laws are to be enforced and what they are to mean; 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 just 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?

Two months ago, I knew nothing about the process by which scientific papers are published. So I had a 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), 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.

Ross Corotis:
email: corotis@colorado.edu

Keith Seffen:
email: kas14@cam.ac.uk
phone: +44 (0) 1223 7 64137
fax: +44 (0) 1223 3 32662

They may not want to deal with the questions, but the world deserves answers.

[ previous articles on this subject ]

September 11:
UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'

September 14:
Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'

November 5:
Seffen's Folly: Attempted 9/11 Hoax By Cambridge And The BBC Was A Failure

Well Done!

This should have been posted on the front page. I remember reading about this and a couple of family members whom I'd been discussing the 911 events with were also interested in it. To say the least I am not surprised that this paper does not seem to exist. Because you don't need a mathematical model to tell you anything that couldn't be observed with the eyes and that is that buildings can't fall at virtual free fall speeds from fire alone. Thanks again Patriot and I hope more people pay attention to this.

Second that... Very High Quality Research !!!

Read your blog earlier today (and [ voted ] for your "Winter Patriot" blog in the 2007 WebBlog Awards).


Main Blog Link (worth bookmarking) : http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/


Everyone who has the time needs to contact Dr. Seffen (even better, his university) and ask for his calculations...

University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, UK, CB2 1PZ

Email : kas14@cam.ac.uk


Seems like quite a few people over at http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12067 have been contacting him since his article came out on Sept-11-2007 (great timing hey)...

I did complain to the BBC on the day it came out, as did many others, requesting details of his "published" paper !!!


Anyway, great job and many thanks

Yeah, Winter Patriot has quite a blog!

This post in particular sticks with us:


We won't forget that one for a while, we won't...


Weblog numbers increase after polls close:


Hope that doesn't throw the results...

Thanks for your support ;-)

And thanks for your vote. It was fun to be in the finals. They're over now, and my blog finished second in its category. It was a very minor category (48th on the list of 49) but still quite an honor. Not sure what this proves but some very good blogs got fewer votes than mine did, while the winner (by a wide margin) turned out to be yet another purveyor of warmongering BS. It was sad to see so much support go to something so hateful, but all in all it has been a privilege and one I don't imagine I will ever get to repeat.

I have to disagree with your comment about "very high quality research" because it isn't, really. It's just run-of-the-mill dragnet stuff. When Seffen's claim hit the BBC I threw a net in the water. Eventually I had to pull it up and empty it out on the table, right?

Anyway it's great that the ASCE has committed to publishing the paper so we will all get to see it and I am grateful to everyone who phoned or wrote. .

The Journal of Engineering

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.

  • F Xu, T J Lu & K A Seffen, "Effect of Thermal Damage on the Compressive Behaviour of Skin Tissue", (2008) Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, in press
  • F Xu, T Wen, T J Lu & K A Seffen, "Skin Biothermomechanics Under Medical Treatments", (2008) Journal of the Mechanical Behaviour of Biomedical Materials, in press
  • F Xu, T J Lu & K A Seffen, "Characterization of Temperature-Dependent Mechanical Behaviour of Skin tissue", (2008) Engineering Letters, in press
  • F Xu, T Wen, K A Seffen & T J Lu, "Modelling of Skin Thermal Pain - a Preliminary Study", (2008) Applied Mathematics and Computation, in press
  • K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", (2007) ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press
  • F Xu, T Wen, K A Seffen & T J Lu, "Characterization of Thermomechanical Behaviour of Skin Tissue II. Viscoelastic Behaviour", (2007) IAENG (WCE) International Conference of Systems Biology and Bioengineering (ICSBB'07), 2-4 July 2007, London , UK [ Ed. Conference Paper ]
  • F Xu, T Wen, K A Seffen & T J Lu, "Characterization of Thermomechanical Behaviour of Skin Tissue I. Tensile and Compressive Behaviours", (2007) IAENG (WCE) International Conference of Systems Biology and Bioengineering (ICSBB'07), 2-4 July 2007, London , UK [ Ed. Conference Paper ]
  • A D Norman, S D Guest & K A Seffen, "Novel Multistable Corrugated Structures", (2007) 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 23-26 April, Hawaii [ Ed. Conference Paper ]
  • K A Seffen, "Performance of a Coiled Coil Piezoelectric Bimorph", (2007) Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 133(2), pp.486-492, DOI: 10.1016/j.sna.2006.04.016
  • K A Seffen, "Hierarchical Multi-stable Shapes in Mechanical Memory Metal", (2007) Scripta Materilia, 56(5), pp.417-420
  • In Press means it is not published as of yet - I believe the latest vol of the journal is 133. Thus until the next issue (December - issue 12) is published you cannot assume his paper was not accepted into the JEM. If it is published it will be denoted with 133(12), pp.####-####, which of course the page numbers cannot be known until it is through the publication process.

    - source: http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/publicationsCat.html
    - Search page for ASME journals - http://ascelibrary.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=JENMDT&ACRO...
    - Vol 133 (Jan. Issue 1 - Nov. Issue 11) are listed with TOC - http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JENMDT&Volume=CURVOL
    Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

    Thanks imgstacke and others...

    So the conclusion is...

    The premise of Winter Patriot's blog is false (I won't get into motivations etc).

    I await "their" reply.

    Many thanks and best wishes


    PS... Please ignore my previous request to contact him or his university !!!

    I apologize for trusting "their" plausible claims without first double checking (thanks imgstacke), it does seem now like a setup !!!

    I have retracted my "10" vote and smacked myself around the head 50 times...

    I don't know if it is false

    I don't know if it is false or true, but I do understand that until the 12 issue of vol 133 is published the statement that their is fraud is premature.
    Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

    Well it should appear in the below search...

    when / if it's published...

    Link to : [ Search for "Progressive Collapse" in title and "World Trade" in title ]


    So far the above only returns one result... Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions - Zdenk, P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure

    - Accepted - 16 September 2006

    - Published - J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007)


    Anyway, I know it'll be a load of BS anyway... but still good to get any and all allegations correct

    Once again, many thanks and best wishes


    When (and if) it's published, it should appear in the search you quoted.

    It should also appear in a search for "Seffen".

    NB it will not likely turn up in a search for "Keith Seffen" but a search for "K. A. Seffen" will likely succeed.

    They like to use their initials ;-)


    until the 12 issue of vol 133 is published the statement that their is fraud is premature.

    on the contrary.

    it you want to talk about premature, consider the articles published in September saying "the findings are published"

    If you want to talk premature...

    ...let's talk about the "massive evidence of an imminent attack" you pushed at your blog.

    Does make one wonder about everything else there, mate...


    I'm afraid you've got the story mixed up, Colonel. Your accusation is quite unfounded.

    You're quoting the Kennebunkport Warning, in which Webster Tarpley used the phrase "massive evidence" .

    I have quoted the Warning on my blog where I have written about it on five or six occasions (starting here) but I have never said I supported it.

    In fact, I have chided Tarpley for not providing the "massive evidence" along with the document. And in the same post, I decried the lack of leadership it exposed.

    I've also written that I would not have signed the Warning, and indeed I have not signed it, nor do I intend to do so.

    So it's not correct to say I ever "pushed" it as "evidence" of any "imminent" anything.

    I don't think there's any disagreement that the evidence is massive. When Tarpley didn't present any evidence, Arabesque stepped up with a big stack, which turned out to be larger than what Tarpley had. I disagree with Tarpley and many others on the question of what that evidence shows.

    and Cheney Doesn't Need To Attack In USA With WMD This Summer

    My massive evidence is bigger than your massive evidence

    "Arabesque stepped up with a big stack, which turned out to be larger than what Tarpley had"

    My massive evidence is bigger than your massive evidence...

    And then Tarpley accuses me of COINTELPRO because I "oppose his warning". Interesting.

    What evidence did he give to support this accusation? What about this one?

    "They began to receive pressure, they were intimidated—I'm only guessing, I know how these things works. Intimidated. Threatened." http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7477#7477

    One of the valid ways to discredit 9/11 activists is through dirty tricks. You can discredit valid warnings, (for example a warning of a false flag attack like the Kennebunkport Warning) by overstating your case. By repeating this formula, it turns into the "boy who cried wolf" disinformation ploy. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-is-captain-may.html

    While there is strong signs of plans or even intent to go to war with Iran, there is not strong evidence to claim an impending false flag attack--this is far more ambiguous and uncertain. This does not mean that we can rule out the possibility either. But guessing is even worse.

    Blah, blah, blah...

    Give it up, mate--echoing Tarpley's talking points about our involvement, at the same time we were being attacked as cointelpro is the action of someone supporting his agenda.

    How's your friend Laurie Dobson these days?


    I call 'em as I see 'em, Jenny.

    I don't support anybody's agenda. I agree with Tarpley when I think he's right and I disagree with him when I think he's wrong, the same as I do with everybody else.

    I disagreed with him about the COINTELPRO accusations and I said so.


    I thought the cartoon was offside and I said that too.


    But on the other hand, this is not really about my supporting Tarpley's agenda, is it?

    It's about my exposing YOUR agenda!

    What was I supposed to do, Jenny? Was I not supposed to notice that you were full of it? Or was I not supposed to mention it?

    Your "investigation" into the events surrounding the Kennebunkport Warning was not only bogus but transparently bogus.

    It wasn't an investigation; it was a hatchet job. You didn't even try to make it look like an investigation.

    You minimized or hid evidence that didn't fit with the conclusion you wanted to reach -- and you laughed about it.

    You gave unwarranted credence to other bits of "evidence" which pointed to your preferred conclusion, but whose provenance was questionable at best -- and you sneered at anyone who dared to point this out.

    Then you declared the Warning a hoax, called the case closed, and you even went so far as to write a letter of apology to one of the groups you supposedly investigated!

    How impartial is that?

    If Tarpley and I both think the same about this particular question, that's because the truth is so obvious nobody could miss it.

    And the same goes for this thread, by the way. You've brought an assortment of vague and unsubstantiated charges against me, lots of ad hominem and innuendo, guilt by association and so on, but nothing substantial, and very little if any of it has even been true.

    I'm doing honest research here, as the first two comments on this thread recognized. What are you doing?

    Keith Seffen, Cambridge and the BBC all appear to have been involved in something fishy. I've been trying to put some pressure on them. Real 9/11 researchers have been helping me. But you've been trying to hinder me.

    As I've said, I disagreed with Tarpley about his COINTELPRO accustations, but the longer you carry on with this cheap BS, the more inclined I am to think he was right.

    Sorry, Jenny. That's the score. I call 'em as I see 'em.

    Never called it a hoax.

    Never called it a hoax, I said I couldn't prove who was telling the truth.

    Jim Hoffman: "It’s so clear. What possible motive would there be someone to go making these vicious characterizations of these really well known peace activists like Cindy Sheehan… When people like [Cosmos], Arabesque, and Wolsey report on it, to be viciously attacked by Tarpley with all these ridiculous accusations of COINTELPRO…? Very entertaining to watch, very vivid, just lurid—it’s ridiculous... I think it’s a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are going to tolerate this sort of thing? Where are the voices of the alleged leaders of the 9/11 truth movement about this and similar incidents? I think the silence from some quarters is deafening."

    Kevin Ryan: "People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant... As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don’t really need any more warnings. We’ll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope."


    I came here to talk about Keith Seffen.

    Would you like to read his paper?

    I've got the first few pages online (in HTML) and the full paper available for download (PDF)

    [Bad link]

    I think you need to read this thread, "chum"


    and then ask yourself why, contrary to all the evidence, you're trying to say it's only Jenny.

    And why you're so long winded about it--bit of the lady doth protest too much?

    I calls them as I see 'em, too.... ;-)


    The list you have pasted here comes from Keith Seffen's page. I don't dispute that it exists. In fact I provided the link in my article.

    Keith Seffen can list as many papers as he likes and call them "in press", but as you correctly noted, "in press" means the paper has not been published. This is exactly my point.

    The BBC (and others) reported on the paper as having been published, when it hadn't. They got that information from Cambridge. The information was false. The paper had not been published then, and it has not been published still.

    Search the ASCE website (the second link you mentioned, also provided in my article) if you don't believe me.

    Go here:


    Type "Seffen" in the box and hit "Search" and see what comes up.

    This is almost irrelevant of course because Seffen's listing of the paper as "in press" is an implicit admission that it hasn't been published.

    My second basic point remains unchallenged: Dr. Seffen and Dr. Corotis have failed to respond to email requests for additional information. The questions, as I pointed out in my article, would have been quite easy to answer:

    I am pleased to report that within the past 24 hours I have seen a couple of hints of possible cooperation from Dr. Corotis. So maybe we're going to find out something eventually -- or maybe not. We will see.

    I *assume* once a paper has

    I *assume* once a paper has gone through the final peer review process and has been accepted by a journal that it can be credited by the author of the paper. These are academics and for them the line 'publish or perish' still rings true. To falsely state acceptance of a paper to an academic journal would be foolish at best.

    I await its publication as it gives real academics more meat to chew up and spit out. Remember this *paper* contiues the debate amongst academics, any flaws can be exploited to our benefit. And if it is in support of the 'Official' story/theory, it has flaws. I would hope that someone would write a paper disputing this paper, as this is the function of Journals.
    Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month


    I'm glad that people are watching for this one (one less thing for me to do).

    As a researcher who submits papers for publication I can say that some journals just really take a long time to publish. It may have been accepted based on certain small changes that are ending up in debate, an editor may have left, an issue may have been moved to a later date, etc. The review process can be highly variable for any number of reasons.

    Another possibility is that given all the attention, the publishers may be holding it off to try to shake off some of the interest, or to make it as solid as possible, knowing it will be the focus of intense debate. It's anyone's best guess, really. There isn't much rock solid about the process of journal publishing of scientific articles, but one would imagine they are aware of the interest and what the potential impact is for the journal.

    >>Keith Seffen can list as many papers as he likes and call them "in press"

    Unlikely any researcher at a university would post it like that without a strong acceptance in play.

    Even though I don't advocate the posting of emails and calls for people to contact them, OTOH, sometimes researchers need to be made aware of the intensity of the public debate on this issue, if they are not already. The focus needs to be on the content, not speculation about why it hasn't yet been published. Yet we cannot focus on content when we cannot see it. So speculation will naturally arise in some.

    Lots of unlikely stuff going on

    >>Keith Seffen can list as many papers as he likes and call them "in press"

    Unlikely any researcher at a university would post it like that without a strong acceptance in play.


    It's unlikely that any researcher who cares about his credibility would discuss unpublished research with the media, never mind representing it as having been published.

    Papers by truth movement's scientists?

    Is it really impossible for scientists in the truth movement to have papers published in scientific journals? (Here I obviously mean other scientific journals than Journal of 9/11 Studies.)

    It would be good to know how many have actually tried to have a paper published. Has e.g. Steven Jones submitted papers for engineering etc. journals?

    Feb 2008 - be there . . .

    Someone just passed along in an email:

    "The subject article is scheduled for the February 2008 issue of the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics."


    I didn't want to jump the gun on this but I've had the same thing from three independent sources so it seems fair to report it


    I hope to have more on this case soon and I will keep you posted.


    Some initial responses to Keith Seffen's paper already...

    Thanks for getting hold of [ Seffen's Paper in PDF Format ]...


    Dr Frank Legge has already had his initial thoughts posted at : http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=97067#97067


    No doubt other people will provide detailed refutations of this ridiculous paper. All I will do is point out that the argument fails in the first paragraph. "... the storey immediately below bears the brunt...".

    That is an assertion which is about as stupid as any that you could think up.

    Firstly, the storey immediately above the impact zone will take half the impact, equal to the impact below.
    Secondly, many storeys will absorb the energy. This is the central feature of Gordon Ross's work - how anyone could be so brazen as to ignore this is beyond belief.
    Thirdly, even if we allow that collapse will occur it is impossible that it will happen in the observed manner. The region above the impact area was hot, so hot that it would collapse they say - and the region below was stone cold. If one region is on the point of collapse and the other is at full strength, which will collapse when the impact occurs?

    Simple really. Perhaps someone should go on the attack and contact the JEM. If they had an honest review perhaps they won't publish, or perhaps they would publish the review.



    More thoughts : http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18849


    W.P. - Are you reasonably sure that this is the reviewed paper that is to be included in the February 2008 issue of the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics ?

    Many thanks and best wishes

    Some more thoughts on the Keith Seffen paper, by...

    Mathematical Physicist...

    Arkadiusz Jadczyk - His Website : http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/


    Extract :

    Okay, I’ve read the paper. If I was a referee for this paper, I would write even less than I wrote about the last paper discussed above. This paper is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, "not even wrong." (An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything. ) That's probably what I would say in a referee report.

    Full Article : http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/11/keith-seffens-wtc-collapse-folly-not.html


    The bit that really disappoints me about this affair, is that the BBC chose to promote this paper and the "theories" presented on 11-Sep-2007 of all days, hmmm

    Best wishes



    Just wanted to add a disclaimer, just been doing some more reading on Laura Knight Jadczyk and was very disappointed to find the below article (15-Sep-2007), which regurgitates JUDY WOOD's TOTALLY DEBUNKED SPACE BEAM CRAP !!!

    Link : http://www.sott.net/articles/show/139903-Ultra-terrestrials+and+9-11

    I'm not sure how this directly reflects on her husband's "thoughts" on Seffen's paper, but it does not bode well !!!