Bazant Takes His Paper Down from His Website!
He must have been feeling the heat!
UPDATE: as noted in comments, he has now put up a revised version which astonishingly seems responsive to a few of the critiques noted here. For instance, relating to my previous post, now he has:
Fc = Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, where Fe = energy "required to accelerate the mass dust and larger fragments ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part". The Fe is new, and is something I said was missing in my previous post. He is still neglecting the energy required to expel outer columns hundreds of feet from the towers.
He also now has a reference for dust size, as noted in comments, though amusingly, uses the WTC7 conspiracy site as a reference!
Of course, in order to argue for rapid collapse, he still uses the ridiculous perfect inelastic collision assumption for his initial calculations of energy.
What's not clear is if the paper, which has been revised twice now, is close to being published-- and further, if the manuscript is being revised in response to reviewers' critiques. Normally, papers are not accepted to prominent journals if they are revised more than twice. More than two revisions indicates flaws severe enough to preclude publication.
Interestingly, the previous paper had at the top-- "Submitted on May 27, 2007, to Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE", which the new revised version does not have. This suggests the paper was REJECTED by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
UPDATE: as noted in comments, he has now put up a revised version which astonishingly seems responsive to a few of the critiques noted here. For instance, relating to my previous post, now he has:
Fc = Fb + Fs + Fa + Fe, where Fe = energy "required to accelerate the mass dust and larger fragments ejected from the tower during the impact of upper part". The Fe is new, and is something I said was missing in my previous post. He is still neglecting the energy required to expel outer columns hundreds of feet from the towers.
He also now has a reference for dust size, as noted in comments, though amusingly, uses the WTC7 conspiracy site as a reference!
Of course, in order to argue for rapid collapse, he still uses the ridiculous perfect inelastic collision assumption for his initial calculations of energy.
What's not clear is if the paper, which has been revised twice now, is close to being published-- and further, if the manuscript is being revised in response to reviewers' critiques. Normally, papers are not accepted to prominent journals if they are revised more than twice. More than two revisions indicates flaws severe enough to preclude publication.
Interestingly, the previous paper had at the top-- "Submitted on May 27, 2007, to Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE", which the new revised version does not have. This suggests the paper was REJECTED by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
posted by spooked at 6:32 PM
14 Comments:
The heat caused it to buckle and the added stress resulted in its collapse.
resulted in its collapse.
ya, Bazant's paper's collapse!
was that the paper co-authored by pretend professor and dedicated moron David B. Benson?
ha ha go build a bicycle powered search engine out of coconuts *professor*!
The pdf version is now back up again, and it has been "revised" as of 12/15/07.
Sorry Bazant, a quick scan of your "revision" shows you have hung yourself out to dry even WORSE now, you foul pseudo-engineer/intel agent.
Just one example. For the first time, Bazant, et al, have listed a "reference" for their claim of 10 microns as the smallest dust particle size. Perhaps Bazant or some gestapo agency employees informed Bazant of the article here decrying his lack of reference for his claim of 10 micron smallest dust particle size.
His revision cites a website:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
This site is clearly a limited hangout itself, and proclaims the "virtues" of S. Jones who would like the world to believe that thermite remains at thousands of degrees for months after use (to hide the China Syndrome). And that website piece cited a sciencedaily.com web article which finally led to the EHP article I cited in my article on the bogus science of Bazant!
One problem though, the EHP article clearly stated that 2.5--not 10--micron size particles were found and were an UPPER limit to the smallest particle size with the flimsy methods they used.
So Bazant used roundabout references that led back to an article that calls him an out and out liar, as it clearly had 2.5 microns as an upper bound to the smallest particles found, and NOT the 10 microns Bazant stated! His collapse "mechanism" must energetically account for the smallest size particles, not just for the "majority" or some such nonsense. What a bogus engineer, I accuse you of being Z.P. Bazant. J'accuse, you gestapo regime agent. You are out now!
I have not had time to check for all his revisions. And as this critique here indicates, the 12/15/07 revision won't be the last!
Anonymous Physicist
Poor Bazant, he just can't catch a break!
Give it up Bazant - all the mathematics in the world can't make a collapse out of an explosion.
Why should anyone believe you, Anonymous Asshole? Bazant's credentials/training/academic honors/published works/etc are right there for anyone and everyone to read - what are yours? Do you have any published works? What engineering school did you attend?
Or are you, as I suspect, nothing more than a "mini-Sphincter-me", mirroring everything he does, playing an ape-like moronic parrot to Sphincter's fat-foot-on-a-paver/rabbit wire "scientific" experiments?
Yes, blaming the messenger (AP and I) is a tried and true strategy for deflecting criticism.
Face it, shill-- you got nothing.
Why don't you join the good guys for a change? The pay is not as good, but you sleep a lot better at night.
Got Shills?
Ha ha Bazant's *paper* does not withstand even the slightest of scrutiny.
Is it any wonder that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics has rejected it?
RE-jected
Hey this Bazant's WTC destruction report has prompted quite a few comments on this blog.
There are plenty of comments that point out why it is wrong but no comments supporting it!
I am now finding it hard to accept this report, is it beyond support?
It is beyond support, fish.
"Yes, blaming the messenger (AP and I) is a tried and true strategy for deflecting criticism."
No, asshole. All I want is a bit of evidence that you two moronic pustules have the credibility to yap about what you yap about. I already know your credibility is in the shitter - no more than claiming to be a "scientist" who makes lego toys and rabbit-wire/wood contraptions and then state with all the scientific acumen in the world that something didn't happen - because your second-grade "experiment" using coat hangers and gasoline showed that a 80-ton aircraft flying at 500 mph did not hit a 500,000 ton skyscraper.
Likewise for the Anony Asshole - I've asked for some academic credentials from him, but he's afraid to pony up said credentials, knowing that an on-line dergree from Fly-By-Night University is not exactly the stuff of academic excellence. All I am asking for is a bit of credibility - a shred of legitimacy to back up this drivel and inane vomitus that emits from this online orifice.
You can twist it all you want, like you always do, but accountability is one of the bedrock foundations of credibility, and both you moronic turd balls have nary a scintilla of either.
Hey 8:19.
It is clear that you are the one who is an anonymous asshole here.
First, Anonymous Physicist has said several times here--and you know it-- that he has taught Physics at several Universities.
Second, the articles A.P. has written here about Bazant's ludicrous articles have cited the pages and/or equations from Bazant's detritus, and have then cited the actual findings say of the dust size, which Bazant lied about! This is all clear cut!
There is no other issue at play here, CIA vermin. All your childish anal references only show how stupid and desperate you and your employer are! It is up to you to also cite the equations and criticisms that A.P. did, and to try to find fault with his analysis.
This you do not do, and cannot do, both becuase you are an ignoramus and because A.P.'s analysis is correct. The more you try to "reply" by insulting with your stupid cussing, the more it is clear that your employer, CIA or whatever bunch of filth, has nothing and can say nothing, and that A.P. has well proven his points.
Good job, Anonymous Physicist!
So why does AP only post his crap here?
Why does he not submit his nuke theories to any journals?
Simple question. Demands a simple answer.
Good Luck.
This won't work in reality, that is what I suppose.
Post a Comment
<< Home