The Heiwa Challenge

[R.Mackey]

PS. I thought Heiwa was actually submitting his theories in a paper, not a discussion letter. I retract my predictions of his impending doom. Nobody cares about a discussion letter. It'll get dismissed with a sarcastic remark. And then ignored.

Yup. The distinction is crucial. Heiwa is not submitting a paper for review at all -- a Discussion in the JEM is nothing more than feedback to an accepted paper. In no circumstance does it mean they're abandoning that paper. Nor is it reviewed for accuracy, the idea is for the author of the original paper to respond.

Dr. Bazant's paper is not, by the way, the "only game in town." We still have the work of Dr. Seffen and about a dozen others, even if something wrong was found in all of Dr. Bazant's paper's, which, of course, we have not.

This is not the first time some yahoo has written up a Discussion. For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing suffered by James Gourley.

The only difference between the pounding Heiwa has taken here, and the humiliation he will shortly encounter, is that now it'll take place in the permanent record of an established Journal. I fail to see how this is progress for him. One should try to field test one's ideas in informal discussions with peers before making a fool of onesself in public.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

 

[FineWine]

How casually you play your little game.

Please understand, your ficticious imaginings are just that: make believe. 9/11 was no more an inside job than Yogi Bear is a living, breathing, tie-wearing, picnic-basket-devouring, English-speaking, bear.

This "inside job" insanity has not been true, is not true, and won't be true in one-hundred years. Why do people like you persist? What's your agenda?

You hit the nail on the head! I've been asking myself that question for days. The "truthers" get the stuffing knocked out of them on every single thread. They lie, they make up nonsense, they duck hard questions, and they run away when the heat becomes unbearable. They never get the idea that their conspiracy simply doesn't exist. Absolutely nothing turned out the way they predicted. They don't have a shred of evidence for their stupid myths. Yet, they're willing suffer all these humiliations for--what?

The cause they cling to so desperately is wrong. It's dumb, irrational, and obviously wrong. What agenda is conceivably advanced by making fools of themselves?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yup. The distinction is crucial. Heiwa is not submitting a paper for review at all -- a Discussion in the JEM is nothing more than feedback to an accepted paper. In no circumstance does it mean they're abandoning that paper. Nor is it reviewed for accuracy, the idea is for the author of the original paper to respond.

Dr. Bazant's paper is not, by the way, the "only game in town." We still have the work of Dr. Seffen and about a dozen others, even if something wrong was found in all of Dr. Bazant's paper's, which, of course, we have not.

This is not the first time some yahoo has written up a Discussion. For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing suffered by James Gourley.

The only difference between the pounding Heiwa has taken here, and the humiliation he will shortly encounter, is that now it'll take place in the permanent record of an established Journal. I fail to see how this is progress for him. One should try to field test one's ideas in informal discussions with peers before making a fool of onesself in public.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

I beg to differ that no errors have been found in Dr. Bazant's papers on the twin tower collapses. He overestimated the axial stiffness of the columns by ten to one, as he came up with 71 GN/m and it turns out when using the actual column sizes a number of engineers, including myself, found it to be 7.1 GN/m. He also does not provide calculations for his estimate of the kinetic energy being 8.4 times greater than the energy absorbing capability prior to first impact. In the work done for the Missing Jolt paper we found that to be highly exaggerated, as it was actually only about 1.4 times. We also only looked at a minimum energy absorption of just the column deformation in only the first stories on either side of the first potential impact.

Let us also not forget that Dr. Bazant assumes an impulsive load took place, which we now know could not be true, as there is no observed deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1.

 

[R.Mackey]

Your "Missing Jolt" paper is untrammeled flotsam.

Any inaccuracy in his estimates does not change the outcome of his conclusion. Also keep in mind he has written many papers, some of which are designed to be more accurate than others, on purpose. Don't mix them up.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your "Missing Jolt" paper is untrammeled flotsam.

Any inaccuracy in his estimates does not change the outcome of his conclusion. Also keep in mind he has written many papers, some of which are designed to be more accurate than others, on purpose. Don't mix them up.

You are obviously just barking at the moon here, as you haven't justified anything you are saying.

While Dr. Bazant could correct the errors he has in his papers he has not done so thus far. I also know he realizes the errors are there as I have communicated this to him through Dr. Frank Greening.

However, the issue is actually much worse as Dr. Bazant's papers do not match observation, and in reality should be withdrawn.

 

[R.Mackey]

You are obviously just barking at the moon here, as you haven't justified anything you are saying.

Memories are short in the Truth Movement.

While Dr. Bazant could correct the errors he has in his papers he has not done so thus far. I also know he realizes the errors are there as I have communicated this to him through Dr. Frank Greening.

However, the issue is actually much worse as Dr. Bazant's papers do not match observation, and in reality should be withdrawn.

Says you.

Funny, I don't see your name on any Discussions. Did you have nothing to add to Mr. Gourley, your collaborator, or are you just totally full of crap in your claims above?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Memories are short in the Truth Movement.



Says you.

Funny, I don't see your name on any Discussions. Did you have nothing to add to Mr. Gourley, your collaborator, or are you just totally full of crap in your claims above?

I did not know James Gourley was writing the rebuttal he wrote to JEM, and believe that was before I ever worked with him.

However, now that it seems the JEM is accepting discussions, I think I will send one in on the errors in the Bazant and Zhou paper and the lack of it's match with observation. Of course, you should realize that the Bazant and Zhou errors affect the other Bazant et al papers as it is referenced in all of them.

 

[R.Mackey]

They have been for some time, as Mr. Gourley's example demonstrates.

Please do, and please keep us informed. I hope you learn more from the experience than Mr. Gourley did.

 

[Baylor]

This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

The small upper block (part C) cannot one-way crush down the bigger lower block (part A)!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

They have been for some time, as Mr. Gourley's example demonstrates.

Please do, and please keep us informed. I hope you learn more from the experience than Mr. Gourley did.

The errors in the Bazant and Zhou paper that I mentioned above are not subjective and your inability to refute that they are indeed errors shows that you realize it. It is obvious your scoffing is being done for face saving purposes.

 

[R.Mackey]

Off-topic garbage, Tony.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Stick to your usual verbiage t. You do not have the wit for this type of writing.

Oh come on, Bill! You have proven yourself to belong in the witless state of mind club; More commonly known as the "truth movement."

 

[MIKILLINI]

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.

The challenge is flawed Heiwa, just re-read the posts that don't agree with you.

 

[Heiwa]

Yup. The distinction is crucial. Heiwa is not submitting a paper for review at all -- a Discussion in the JEM is nothing more than feedback to an accepted paper. In no circumstance does it mean they're abandoning that paper. Nor is it reviewed for accuracy, the idea is for the author of the original paper to respond.

...

The only difference between the pounding Heiwa has taken here, and the humiliation he will shortly encounter, is that now it'll take place in the permanent record of an established Journal. I fail to see how this is progress for him. One should try to field test one's ideas in informal discussions with peers before making a fool of onesself in public.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

Yes, it is only a friendly and lively Discussion of “What did and did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York” by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008).

It was submitted 3 February 2009 so it took ASCE/JME four months to decide to publish. When the latter will actually take place, we'll see. Maybe JME will ask Bazant & Co to reply and publish it in same issue? I would say it is a positive sign.

 

[GlennB]

This is not the first time some yahoo has written up a Discussion. For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing suffered by James Gourley.

Thanks for that, I hadn't read it before. It contains so many rebuttals to truther misconceptions that it's pointless to try to list them all. But required reading for anybody with an interest.

It concludes with the delicious advice :

"Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion

on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information."

​

 

[R.Mackey]

Exactly.

That's scientist-speak for "get a life, punk." And well earned in this case.

 

[GlennB]

Let us also not forget that Dr. Bazant assumes an impulsive load took place, which we now know could not be true, as there is no observed deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1.

This has been debated to death here. Why are you reviving it? Treating the initial collapse as pure axial impact is a perfectly reasonable simplification for the purposes of calculation. The fact that there's no observable 'jolt' doesn't mean Bazant is wrong, just that he's doing theoretical mechanics to demonstrate a point. In reality - of course - it would be a gradual and skewed meeting of damaged sections where the 'deceleration' you crave would be unobservable from moment to moment. You're obsessed by this point just as that idiot here (psikey?) is obsessed about knowing the exact steel dimensions of every member on every floor, top to bottom. Demanding to see something that can never be seen allows you a flimsy excuse to cling to delusions. Your ego is over-invested now, and you can't back off.

 

[Minadin]

Thanks Mackey for linking to that discussion - it was very informative.

 

[Heiwa]

For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing suffered by James Gourley.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

First we have to see, if there is a rebuttal by Bazant & Co or anybody to my simple, basic, friendly and lively Comments in JEM about the BLGB paper. I am very curious. Anyway, I am grateful to Prof. Ross Corotis and ASCE/JEM for deciding to publish them. R.Mackey - I think you are just feeling ill will because of actual loss of reputation, etc. You see, exclusive loyalty and whole-hearted service to a lost cause are painful.

 

[stateofgrace]

Make sure you call them obnoxious OCTist and demand they get back on topic rather than attempt to back up anything you claim.