Available For Review: Keith Seffen's Simple Analysis Of The WTC "Collapse"

The existence of the paper, "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", by University of Cambridge senior lecturer Keith Seffen, is no longer in doubt.

Dr. Seffen has claimed his paper shows the collapse of the WTC towers was "destined to be rapid and total" once it began, and the rapid and total destruction of the towers was "an ordinary thing to have happened."

The paper was cited on September 11, 2007, by the BBC and others, who reported it as having been published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM), a monthly publication of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). But a search of the ASCE archives revealed that the paper had not been published.

Two months later, when the paper still had not appeared, I wrote a series of articles mentioning this discrepancy and documenting some of the efforts made by myself and others to obtain further information on this story -- all of which had been ignored.

A few people who read those stories had academic credentials and were able to provoke a response where humble bloggers had failed. The questions they sent to JEM editor Ross Corotis were answered, and yesterday I was able to report that Keith Seffen's paper is scheduled to be published in February, 2008 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

If that was good news, this is even better: one of the other people who read those stories had even better credentials, and he went digging in a different place. And you'll never guess what he managed to unearth ... or will you?

Listen: It's a lot like blowing up a balloon -- a long, thin one. It takes a lot of pressure to get it started, but once it gets going, the rest is easy.

You can read the first few pages of Dr. Seffen's paper, and/or download the entire report (in PDF format) via the following link:

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

Don't leave us guessing

I'm not the one who gave this posting a '1' rating, but I wonder whether that might have been because we're left to guess what that person with 'even better credentials...managed to unearth'. Please--do tell! Otherwise, this reads as if it might be pro-Seffen, pro-official story garbage.

If you click the link ...

... you can read the first few pages of the paper (in HTML) and there's also a link where you can download the entire paper (PDF).

The "1" rating is because somebody here doesn't like me. Don't worry about that.

I apologize for leaving you guessing but I thought my point was clear. In any case, please click it, and read it, and share it with your friends.

The more times this paper has been debunked before its imminent publication, the less ice it will cut (if any).