Journal of Engineering Mechanics, To release Peer Reviewed Paper WTC Collapses

Well, I actually look forward to hearing back from him because maybe he can make "me wee li'l brain" understand why what he is saying is logical. I continue to look for an analytical approach on this that takes into account the behavior of the core columns during the "tilt" of the top portion of the building, during the "righting" of the top portion of the building, and then during the collapse. I have yet to read an approach that logically handles the core columns. I will readily admit I have probably not read everything out there, so maybe some where some one has presented a feasible explanation/analysis that I have missed.

Just to update, he has not responded yet.

I'll let you know if and when he does.

reply to post by Valhall


IS that the same Dr Seffen, these people have emailed, some since Sept?

www.nineeleven.co.uk...

Something a little strange here?

Yeah, that's the same paper. Apparently they had been trying to get a pre-publish copy and didn't get any responses. Hopefully Dr. Seffen will be more responsive to communications dealing with technical content, but we'll see.

There was a flurry of announcements (mostly in the UK) about this paper around the anniversary of 9/11, including the Guardian and Channel 4 News, many announcing that it was already published:

BBC (11th Sept) "The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics" (later altered to "The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.")

Business Weekly "Dr Keith Seffen... has published a paper "

Daily India (11 Sept) "His findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics."

Cambridge Evening News (12 Sept) "His findings are reported in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics."

Cambridge University's own website (11 Sept) "A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published..."

There is no mention of Seffon's paper in the September issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, nor the October or November issues.

Discussed in some detail here: infowars.net...

From the Cambridge University website:

Interviews with Dr Keith Seffen can be arranged on request. Copies of his paper, Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis, can be provided."
For more information, contact:

Tom Kirk, Communications Office, University of Cambridge, Tel: 01223 332300, mobile 07917 535815, Email: [email protected]

I have been making regular phone calls to Cambridge University for several weeks to discover why such a reputable establishment would be making false claims about the status of an unpublished paper. On every occassion to date Tom Kirk has been unavailable for comment and none of the promises to return my call have been honoured. Try it yourself.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
I have been making regular phone calls to Cambridge University for several weeks to discover why such a reputable establishment would be making false claims about the status of an unpublished paper. On every occassion to date Tom Kirk has been unavailable for comment and none of the promises to return my call have been honoured. Try it yourself.

None of this sounds odd to anyone else?

Sounds like a publicity stunt, doesn't it? A few media outlets were trying to run with this, but the actual academics behind it is still totally lacking in the referenced journal. Papers like this have been going back and forth between engineers and scientists on "both sides" for months online. There's nothing special about this model that makes it any better than any of the others, if what Val's saying is justified (and even though I haven't read the paper, the same problems have always been problems for models this simple or simpler, ie Greening's, the first Bhazant and Zhou).


Someone just model it? Justify the input parameters and model it.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by bsbray11]

It is my understanding that it is scheduled for publication in February.

We'll see.

Great posts Valhall.

Seffen's analysis looks like one that has been thrown into the mix to muddy the waters and undermine the published work of Jones. Your critique of it's flawed assumptions exposes it as a classic example of fixing the model to get the desired result.

I would be surpised if Keith Seffen responds to you directly. He seems to be part of the propaganda support team.

To my mind, there is simply no way to achieve the actual collapse rate of these three structures without actively removing all structural integity just ahead of the collapse wave.

It is my understanding that FEMA and NIST failed to reproduce this reality in any of their physical modeling and needed to tweek computer simulations with unrealistic factors/parameters to get close.