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.

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.

The world awaits the publication of "UK engineer" Keith Seffen's "analysis" of the WTC "collapse", as promised by the BBC in an article of September 11.

The BBC piece, as I mentioned last Tuesday, was changed after it was published. The original version said that Seffen's "findings are published"; the second version says Seffen's findings "are to be published". So, while we wait to find out whether the findings will actually be published, we can't do much more than look at the press release from the University of Cambridge, upon which the BBC article is apparently based.

Aside from the obvious impropriety of reporting on a scientific paper before it's been published, virtually every paragraph of the press release is either misleading or downright false.