A Call To Scientists, Academics & Concerned Citizens

As you know Dr Keith Seffen (Cambridge, UK) published a paper that described the collapse of the Twin Towers as a very ordinary event. This paper was trumpeted across the internet, primarily by that quite reprehensible state-sponsored propaganda organisation known as the BBC.

A highly qualified British truth seeker (Accountant and Mathematician) wrote to the University of Cambridge in order to register his concerns and complain about the apparent lack of Science in this paper.

He received the following response.

I urge those of you who are concerned to register your complaints in writing, firstly with the University of Cambridge, and secondly and more importantly with the Society of American Civil Engineers.

In the former case the letter should be addressed:

Attn Professor Alison Richard
University of Cambridge
The Old Schools
Trinity Lane

And open with Dear Madam Professor,

In the latter case addressed as follows:

American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston Virginia 20191
United States of America

And open with Dear President, chairman and to whom it may concern:

In each letter a reference should be made to the paper concerned e.g.

I write concerning the paper published in the February edition of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by Dr K Seffen (Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis. By: Seffen, K. A.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Feb2008, Vol. 134 Issue 2, p125-132)

Don’t pretend you have read it if you haven’t, however you should state your opinion clearly concerning the stupidity of pretending that the collapse of the Twin Towers was “an ordinary event” as the paper suggests. Also note the fact that the paper and the events of 9/11 are both in the public interest. The paper not least because it was widely publicised world wide across the Internet by the BBC. Then go on to explain your reasons why you think this is a total outrage, fraud, hoax, bad science etc. Feel free to reference papers published on the http://www.journalof911studies.com

Obviously if any Scholars are to respond (stj911.org or ae911truth.org) then I suggest that you obtain the paper through the usual channels.

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a call to space beamers, DEW fantasists or no-planers.

You will only receive standard replies at best, but this will show strength of feeling, and these agents of false-flag terror, who are engaged in a massive public deception, will realise the public will not be duped into accepting the scientifically impossible.

(British & American spellings used.)

Seffen paper

I'm not surprised by the letter received from the Vice-Chancellor. I fully expected this type of response and I agree that it is the correct response by the University. The University has no responsibility to vet any papers that are submitted for publication by any of their faculty or students. It is the Journal that publishes the paper that has the responsibility to vet it through the peer-review process. Apparently it passed peer-review.

I further do not believe that it is appropriate to write a letter of complaint to the journal. When responding to a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal (which JEM is, irregardless of their decision to publish this paper), one does not adopt the same tactics as one might when protesting a political decision. The way one responds is by refuting the paper through careful scientific argument that directly addresses the deficiencies of the paper itself. Trying to present the other side of the argument (i.e., by appeal to thermite residues, anecdotal testimony of explosions, etc.) without directly addressing the argument of the paper itself will fall on deaf ears.

I say, leave this one to the experts.

As a Scientist have you read Seffen's Paper?

Respectfully you have missed my point and I disagree with you.

1. The journal does have a responsibility to the public, especially when they discuss matters in the public interest. The papers by Bazant for instance are in the public domain and they should invoke a response of the public. Letters from the public are entirely appropriate especially in this instance as the paper received much media fanfare. Do you think that the BBC read the content of the paper prior to issuing the clarion call as to its content? It is important to show the strength of public feeling especially on this matter, which is an attempt to distort facts, subvert science and common sense.

2. It is for Scientists such as yourself to read the paper and write letters in response citing the publications in the http://journalof911studies.com for example or using your own knowledge of physics, mathematics, engineering and common sense to refute the claims made in that paper. Note the title of my post "A call to Academics Scientists & Citizens". Some of us will not have the facilities to carry out research in this case the only option is to write letters - just as the public can! But in our cases (as Scientists) we state our qualifications and the content of the letters will no doubt raise issues reflecting our Scientific insights into this matter.

3. All learned journals receive letters from their readers (including the journalof911studies.com, Nature, Scientific American, The Lancet etc) , as do University departments concerning the work that their faculty are carrying out.

It's largely because of the lassitude of American Engineers and Scientists, and the sophistry of Bazant and now Seffen (backed by research funding from the Military Industrial Complex), that the crimes of 9/11 have gone largely unchallenged in the Scientific community.

4. I am reliably informed that the person who wrote the original letter to which the response above is posted, holds two separate UK Honors degrees, one in Accountancy and one in Mathematics. He has actually read Dr Seffen's paper, as have I. You can find the paper here:


So can I ask have you read the paper? Can I ask you if you think that Seffen's mathematical model fits with what we all saw in the World Trade Centre collapses. Can I go on to ask you if Seffen's Mathematical model does not fit what we saw in terms of the collapse of the Twin Towers, why not?

For an example of the numerous fallacies, can I refer you to page 29 http://winterpatriot.pbwiki.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf, is this not sheer madness to accept "The crush-front has propagated lambda_L over time t, resulting in motion of the parts above." The entire mass of the top section remains intact through the process, with no accounting for Newtons third law of motion stated simply as "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", was this what we saw when the towers collapsed - did the entire mass remain intact & were Newtons Laws suspended?

The problem here is one of scientific obfuscation in order to carry out a mass public deception; thus 2+2 = 4, however 2((2^5/2^5) + (2^5/2^5)) is also 4. Without my telling you the answer to 2((2^5/2^5) + (2^5/2^5)) it requires a little more attention mentally but the result is still the same, but how many people will pay that extra attention and reach the conclusion? Is it really a question of the need to be an "expert" when massive simple fallacies are committed?

In conclusion then and most respectfully I'm sorry, I can't leave this to the "experts". I've met many "experts" in America, structural engineers, who repeatedly tell me that "the bolts failed" because "someone did a study". I will be writing a letter to Cambridge and to the Journal!

So obviously I would not personally follow your advice in this matter, it is correct to an extent. It is correct in that Scientists such as those who have published papers for the Journal of 911 Studies, do need to submit their papers and responses to this paper directly to journals.

As you have said yourself and I quote you directly:
"In any case, getting a paper published in a mainstream journal is tough. By their very nature, peer-reviewed journals tend to be very conservative, especially in the physics and engineering communities. All the best to you all.
this was in your response to: "Eight-author paper (including 5 PhD's) pub'd in Journal of 9/11 Studies: Extremely High Temperatures during the WTC destruction"


Without the strength of individual Scientists writing letters stating their concerns, what chance is there that even a paper published by 5 PhDs (in that particular case) will be accepted in a mainstream journal? By my accepting your previous quoted argument? Further where will the funding for this further research come from when Prof Jones et al. have been persistently and consistently stonewalled?

Following your arguments, Prof. Jones, Kevin Ryan et al. should all be applying for jobs in Cambridge as they support academic freedom it would seem. Especially now as £1 is around $2!

However individuals (Scientists and otherwise) still have a significant role to play in this matter with personal letters. I say that this isn't one that is left to the experts, as the "experts" in this matter are those like Dr Keith Seffen.

Finally this is a particular case where the words of Galileo ring true; "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."--Galileo Galilei

What "upper block"?

Who are you going to believe, Seffen, Bazant et al. or your lying eyes?


“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

A solid group of scientists

A solid group of scientists and engineers is now writing and submitting papers for peer-review and publication in mainstream journals. We have submitted four papers by my count, with one accepted for publication already. In addition, I and colleagues are working on other papers which we will submit for publication soon.

Yes, this is part of the modern scientific approach, and we are pursuing it. Some of our papers will be in response to papers like that of Seffen while others represent our original research (for instance, observations on spheres in the WTC dust).

Seffen's paper proposes as a central argument the same argument as Bazant's to which we are responding. Both Seffen and Bazant require the upper block of floors in each Tower to remain essentially intact and to act as a tamper to some how destroy the lower part of each building. Observations of what happened to these upper blocks shows that they did NOT remain intact to act as tampers on the lower parts of the buildings, in fact.

I should add that editors can elect to simply NOT review a paper, without allowing peer reviewing. We have had two papers (that I know of) dismissed as "beyond the scope of this journal", with no technical comments whatsoever. So we keep at it. We actively seek peer-review of our papers and research, and we will continue to challenge papers which are not scientifically solid in our view. That is how the process should work, and we hope that political issues will not preclude peer-review of our papers.

Note the peer-review process

Note the peer-review process can be VERY slow.
One paper accepted for publication in a mainstream journal was submitted around July 2007, accepted following peer review months ago, yet still has not appeared in print! This is another way editors can affect the debate...

Thank you Prof Jones for

Thank you Prof Jones for your kind comments.

My letters to Cambridge University & to the Society of American Civil Engineers have only focused on the fallacies clearly demonstrated in this paper, and the previous paper by Bazant.

The points I have disputed include the top of the building, (the falling mass), remaining intact when it clearly didn't - it disintegrated, literally disintegrating upwards!

I pointed out the logical fallacy which is accepted in the paper that "the columns fracture under very little bending immediately beyond the squash load, thereby removing the softening phase altogether" (page 5) which is as ridiculous as it sounds. This is when the loads involved are realistically considered, alongside the load bearing redundancy of the building.

On page 21 quote "The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally..", well in that case the thousands of tons of debris ejected laterally are completely ignored, this would negate any "squash load" (alluding to Hooke's law) which is essential for this model to be even vaguely plausible, and taken as being the valid basis for this model!