Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[paulheinze]

Thank you Dave Rogers. I think, I understand the model better now. It seems to be correct. I have still doubts about the effect of displacement of impact. But generally it seems correct that an upper block falling on the lower can crush the whole structure provided having enough kinetic energy.

 

[paulheinze]

Excuse me, paulheinze, would you care to address my questions?? Thanks.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Corrected username.

I did not reason about the reaction of the Twin Towers. I have to point out, that the Bazant model is theoretical analysis of top-down-collapses under the assumption of a simultanoeus failure of a complete storey. As i see his calculations are correct. So if taking out a whole floor there would be to much kinetic energy to be arrested provided the kinetic energy is released to the load-bearing members of the structure. There has not been an examination whether the TT fell in the way suggested by his model. This is a completely different question.

BTW, me not giving calculations does neither prove nor disprove the correctness of his model. I hope you do not expect from to just believe him as this is not my definition of critical thinking. A calculation is not correct if the author has the correct degree. Arguments as to authority are no arguments at all.

 

[T.A.M.]

BTW, me not giving calculations does neither prove nor disprove the correctness of his model. I hope you do not expect from to just believe him as this is not my definition of critical thinking. A calculation is not correct if the author has the correct degree. Arguments as to authority are no arguments at all.

Excellent point, and one that should be pointed out to every truther who tries to throw Jone's thermite paper out as proof.

TAM

 

[paulheinze]

Excellent point, and one that should be pointed out to every truther who tries to throw Jone's thermite paper out as proof.

TAM

If the argument is just based on Jones' educational and vocational background I admit that. But Jones' himself never (as to my knowledge) relied on his authority when discussing.

 

[rwguinn]

I did not reason about the reaction of the Twin Towers. I have to point out, that the Bazant model is theoretical analysis of top-down-collapses under the assumption of a simultanoeus failure of a complete storey. As i see his calculations are correct. So if taking out a whole floor there would be to much kinetic energy to be arrested provided the kinetic energy is released to the load-bearing members of the structure. There has not been an examination whether the TT fell in the way suggested by his model. This is a completely different question.

BTW, me not giving calculations does neither prove nor disprove the correctness of his model. I hope you do not expect from to just believe him as this is not my definition of critical thinking. A calculation is not correct if the author has the correct degree. Arguments as to authority are no arguments at all.

His authority is ALL he relied on.
The lack of calculations is a dead give-away. Had he provided appropriate mathematical evidence, that could have been evaluated. Instead, he requires that we rely on his words, and expertise.
That, me lad, is "Argument from authority.

If the argument is just based on Jones' educational and vocational background I admit that. But Jones' himself never (as to my knowledge) relied on his authority when discussing.

 

[paulheinze]

He provided his experimental data on his published papers, which are examined by two other scientists. What mathematical calculations do you suggest?

 

[TruthersLie]

If the argument is just based on Jones' educational and vocational background I admit that. But Jones' himself never (as to my knowledge) relied on his authority when discussing.

Ummm have you ever seen any of the videos of jones speaking?

He is constantly introduced as Dr Steven Jones, a world reknowned physicist from BYU.

that is the complete and utter reason twoofs LOVE Steven Jones.. they say "see, he has a phd."

There is NO science in most of his papers.

Having read over the Bazant papers, I don't have the background to attack his formula's or equations. I can however see that they don't have any math errors in them, and from my basic understanding (with calc 3 and 3 years of engineering courses) I can see that Bazant isn't trying to model the full collapse, but to show that once it started it couldn't be stopped.

 

[Heiwa]

That was my first impression too, that crush up and crush down should be simultaneous. If you only consider two bodies, that's the intuitive impression you're bound to get. It's only when you realise that the crushed material between the two not only can be, but has to be, treated as a third body that the rather more counter-intuitive result becomes clearer.



Firstly, the two frames of reference aren't equivalent, because the reference frame of body 2 isn't inertial. It shouldn't be surprising, therefore, that the results aren't symmetrical between the two bodies. Secondly, there's the rather major asymmetry that body 2 is fixed at its outer end to a mass large enough that it may be treated as immovable, whereas body 1 isn't; body 1 can therefore move freely under the action of the forces acting upon it, whereas body 2 can only crush.



That depends on what the assumption of a rigid body actually means. In this context, it means that elastic and plastic deformation of body 1 is negligible, not that body 1 is indestructible. Body 1 is still allowed to crush; the absence of crush-up is a result, not an assumption.



Nor was it ever intended to be a sufficient explanation. It is, rather, a limiting case. There is an infinite range of possible collapse modes, with varying energy balances. The BZ calculation is based on the one collapse mode that is most optimistic to survival; however unlikely that mode may be, if it is found to result in collapse, then any other collapse mode must also result in collapse.

In reality, it's perfectly clear that the impacts were not column-on-column; it's likely that there were several processes going on simultaneously, including funnelling of rubble into the inside of the perimeter column tube, floor collapse, and buckling failure of unsupported column sections trailing the interior collapse. There's also the role of the hat truss to consider, in presenting a stronger top end of the falling block and quite possibly doing considerable damage to the core as it collided with parts of it. However, what we can say with reasonable certainty is that the real collapse mode was energetically more favourable than the theoretical limiting case analysed by BZ, and that therefore global collapse was the expected outcome. Detailed analysis of the collapse to show that it differs from BZ in fine details is irrelevant to this conclusion.

Dave

Hm, if you treat the problem in 1-D the upper, lose part C should be, e.g. 10 material points, each with mass m, held together by potentials/springs, and the lower part A, connected to ground, could be, e.g. 90 material points, also each with mass m, and held together by potentials/springs. The springs differ - they become 'stronger' lower down as any spring can carry the m above while just elastically compress a little.

At impact C/A you'll find that the 10 C m are decelarated and that the C springs are compressed. The 90 A m are accelerated while the A springs are also compressed. If no spring breaks (and no energy is lost due to friction) the springs will decompress, the material points will move in another direction and the two parts C and A will oscilate. It is quite easy to describe it with differential equations. Evidently no one-way crush down of A takes place.

If one spring breaks, i.e. a local failure occurs, you have to find out what spring breaks, and re-do the analysis with C and A where one part is modified (one spring broken).

If you can show that part C and its 10 m can break the 90 A springs due to initial energy applied by moving C (being dropped on A) and by energy added, when the 100 m displace by gravity down to ground, you have solved the one-way crush down problem in 1-D.

So far nobody has been able to do so!

 

[Dave Rogers]

If one spring breaks, i.e. a local failure occurs, you have to find out what spring breaks, and re-do the analysis with C and A where one part is modified (one spring broken).

If you can show that part C and its 10 m can break the 90 A springs due to initial energy applied by moving C (being dropped on A) and by energy added, when the 100 m displace by gravity down to ground, you have solved the one-way crush down problem in 1-D.

Observers should note that when Heiwa applied this analysis to the Twin Towers, he felt the need to pretend that half the initial energy was lost to friction, although he didn't present any calculations to support this pretence, and that the full initial energy was enough to strain the entire lower structure beyond its elastic limit. Therefore, even in the most optimistic scenario possible, Heiwa had to cheat to come up with a result that even suggested the possibility of the lower structure surviving.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Observers should note that when Heiwa applied this analysis to the Twin Towers, he felt the need to pretend that half the initial energy was lost to friction, although he didn't present any calculations to support this pretence, and that the full initial energy was enough to strain the entire lower structure beyond its elastic limit. Therefore, even in the most optimistic scenario possible, Heiwa had to cheat to come up with a result that even suggested the possibility of the lower structure surviving.

Dave

Hmm, at perfect impact top part C on bottom part A both C and A deform (internal friction) and different amounts of energy applied by C are absorbed by A and C. External friction has not yet come into the play/game. Then an element may break, C and A are modified, and friction between not perfect contacts between elements of C and A must be considered.

NIST and Bazant and ... Mackey, of course, ... ignore this simple first failure/effect after initiation and ignore friction totally.

They, NIST and Bazant and ... Mackey, of course, ... suggest that another perfect impact takes place and that top part C always win, i.e. break another element/connection in bottom part A. But it is not so simple! Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm for more facts.

 

[paulheinze]

There is, also, a rather powerful counter-argument to doubts over the one-way crush-down theory, and that is that it is clearly no longer a theory. The videos posted over the last few days of buildings demolished by the French Verinage technique show very clearly that one-way crush-down is in fact an observation, and a highly reproducible one.

Dave

Interestingly, verinage is a controlled demolition technique. Is there any example (except allegedely the WTC) of a building demolishing itself in this way due to natural causes?

Whoever thinks the verinage videos support the official collapse theory should consider that these videos show controlled demolition. If a "collapse" appears to look like a controlled demolition technique it points to demolition not to a natural cause. These videos are an argument against natural causes rather that against controlled demolition.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Interestingly, verinage is a controlled demolition technique. Is there any example (except allegedely the WTC) of a building demolishing itself in this way due to natural causes?

Whoever thinks the verinage videos support the official collapse theory should consider that these videos show controlled demolition. If a "collapse" appears to look like a controlled demolition technique it points to demolition not to a natural cause. These videos are an argument against natural causes rather that against controlled demolition.

The intent behind the collapses is irrelevant. Can you explain how the mechanics of that controlled demolition are fundamentally different from what is said to have happened at the WTC, simply because one is a deliberate act and one is the result of a plane crash and fire?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Whoever thinks the verinage videos support the official collapse theory should consider that these videos show controlled demolition. If a "collapse" appears to look like a controlled demolition technique it points to demolition not to a natural cause. These videos are an argument against natural causes rather that against controlled demolition.

That's the sort of argument that relies on a complete absence of context and an absolute neglect of fine detail to give the illusion of significance. You're assuming that all building collapses can, first and foremost, be classified into two types, labelled "controlled" and "natural", and that the differences between these classes are sufficiently profound that similarities between any two smaller sub-classes are negligible should those two sub-classes not fall into the same major classification. From there, you're then assuming that these two major classes can be readily distinguished by appearance, and therefore that any collapse can easily be classified by casual inspection.

Verinage is a means of collapse initiation; the progression of the collapse is an uncontrolled process in a verinage demolition. Since the crush-down argument argues that a structural collapse cannot progress to global collapse without assistance, the existence of the verinage technique is a complete and unarguable refutation of this specific objection to the claim that the Twin Towers' collapse progression was unaided by explosives. And since that's the claim that we're discussing in this thread, in effect the debate is over; the counter-claim has been proven.

Now, if you want to suggest that the Twin Towers were demolished using a variant of the verinage technique, I suggest you start a new thread to do so. In that thread, you will then have to examine whether the collapse initiation seen in the Twin Towers matched the appearance of verinage, and whether it was feasible that the required preparation of the structure could have been carried out undetected. I think we can agree that collapse progression matched that of verinage, but since the verinage technique does nothing to assist collapse progression, that is equivalent to saying that the collapse progression was characteristic of a natural collapse.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Interestingly, verinage is a controlled demolition technique. Is there any example (except allegedely the WTC) of a building demolishing itself in this way due to natural causes?

Whoever thinks the verinage videos support the official collapse theory should consider that these videos show controlled demolition. If a "collapse" appears to look like a controlled demolition technique it points to demolition not to a natural cause. These videos are an argument against natural causes rather that against controlled demolition.

It's a good example of what happens when an entire floor of gravity resisting elements fail. The fact you're trying to state otherwise is just pure desperation.

 

[twinstead]

Whoever thinks the verinage videos support the official collapse theory should consider that these videos show controlled demolition. If a "collapse" appears to look like a controlled demolition technique it points to demolition not to a natural cause. These videos are an argument against natural causes rather that against controlled demolition.

The verinage videos support what you call the "official collapse theory" (what rational people call the "collapse theory that the vast majority of experts from around the world agree on and that is supported by the most evidence") by showing that explosives are not required to make a building fall like the WTCs. The plane impacts and resulting fires acted in the same way that the verianage technique does. All the truthers we know who claim the WTC collapse was impossible claim it was impossible without explosives or some exotic thermitic substance, or both. The videos show otherwise.

Like Dave Rogers said, If you think the WTC was brought down by a variant of the verinage technique, then please start a thread on it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Hm, if you treat the problem in 1-D the upper, lose part C should be, e.g. 10 material points, each with mass m, held together by potentials/springs, and the lower part A, connected to ground, could be, e.g. 90 material points, also each with mass m, and held together by potentials/springs. The springs differ - they become 'stronger' lower down as any spring can carry the m above while just elastically compress a little.

At impact C/A you'll find that the 10 C m are decelarated and that the C springs are compressed. The 90 A m are accelerated while the A springs are also compressed. If no spring breaks (and no energy is lost due to friction) the springs will decompress, the material points will move in another direction and the two parts C and A will oscilate. It is quite easy to describe it with differential equations. Evidently no one-way crush down of A takes place.

If one spring breaks, i.e. a local failure occurs, you have to find out what spring breaks, and re-do the analysis with C and A where one part is modified (one spring broken).

If you can show that part C and its 10 m can break the 90 A springs due to initial energy applied by moving C (being dropped on A) and by energy added, when the 100 m displace by gravity down to ground, you have solved the one-way crush down problem in 1-D.

So far nobody has been able to do so!

You realize that I can use the same sort of tactics to demonstrate that the earth is stationary and the sun, moon, and stars revolve around it?

Evidently, the earth doesn't move because we would be thrown off it.

Evidently, the sun and moon move across the sky while the earth stands still.

Evidently, all heavenly bodies are much smaller than the earth.

I could even use differential equations to prove my point. I could invent axioms that state boldly that my position is correct. All I would have to do is to simply ignore the more subtle evidence that proves me wrong, just as you do.

The difference between your ideas and the geocentric universe is that, at one time, the geocentric universe was the best theory to fit the available evidence. Your theory is a way of explaining away the best evidence because it is designed to claim that the ONLY incidences that would prove your theory conclusively wrong did not happen the way they happened, and THAT's why your theory is right.

This has to be the grand poobah of circular thinking.

 

[TruthersLie]

Interestingly, verinage is a controlled demolition technique. Is there any example (except allegedely the WTC) of a building demolishing itself in this way due to natural causes?

Whoever thinks the verinage videos support the official collapse theory should consider that these videos show controlled demolition. If a "collapse" appears to look like a controlled demolition technique it points to demolition not to a natural cause. These videos are an argument against natural causes rather that against controlled demolition.

It would actually help paul if you paid attention to the TYPE of demolitons.

The verinage technique, weakens a floor or two, and then uses hydraulic presses to PUSH out the supports on the floor and the building then crushes down.

It is NOT the "controlled demolition" that twoofs think happened at the towers. They do NOT weaken every floor. THey do not push out the supports on all of the floors, they do NOT weaken the lower floors.

The verinage technique shown in the 6 or 7 videos on youtube demonstrate EXACTLY what happens when the building collapses one or two floors (you know what happened in the towers), and it shows that once it starts, it completely crushes the structure down.

 

[tuc0]

Heiwa: I don't want to derail this fascinating thread, but I recall you sending a letter with your theories to an engineering journal some time ago. Was this letter published? If it was, what were the reactions? If not, do you know why not?

If this has been discussed and I just missed it could you give me a link? Thanks.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa: I don't want to derail this fascinating thread, but I recall you sending a letter with your theories to an engineering journal some time ago. Was this letter published? If it was, what were the reactions? If not, do you know why not?

If this has been discussed and I just missed it could you give me a link? Thanks.

Below is correspondence with ASCE:

Dear Anders,

I checked the folder and I do not see anything. Is there anyway you can fax it. I will check with a few other people to see if they have it.

Jennifer

________________________________

From: Hermine BJORKMAN [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Fri 9/11/2009 2:20 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Cc: Corotis@Colorado.EDU; BJORKMAN
Subject:


Dear Jennifer,

pls advise what is going on!

Kind regards

Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: "ASCE Journal-Submissions1" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Anders,

I will check on Tuesday when I am back in the office.

Jennifer

________________________________

From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thu 8/27/2009 4:35 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Subject: Re: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Jennifer!

It was sent early June! With nice stamps of Monaco. Pls have a look in your
mail box.

best regards

Anders


----- Original Message -----
From: "ASCE Journal-Submissions1" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:25 PM
Subject: RE: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Anders,

I just have to wait to receive the signed copyright form in the mail.

Jennifer Parresol

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for Rule 8

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:30 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Subject: Re: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Dear Jennifer.

It says manuscript sent back to Author. The View Letter says I must sign the
Copyright agreement. Which I did per snail mail. Everything else is approved
since 3 June 2009.

What else can I do?

br

Anders


----- Original Message -----
From: "ASCE Journal-Submissions1" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:27 PM
Subject: RE: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Anders,

Please log into the system and see if there is a duplicate.

Jennifer

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for Rule 8

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:57 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Subject: Re: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Importance: High

Dear Ms Parresol.

Very strange. The revisionen was completed in May or June and I also sent a
signed Copyright document to you via ordinary mail. I am waiting for the
paper to be published.

Best regards

Anders Björkman


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer Parresol" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:24 PM
Subject: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics


>
> Dear Mr Björkman,
>
> Thank you for registering with the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. When
> checking the system I noticed that you have started to revise your
> submission entitled "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin
> Towers in New York", but have not completed the process. Is there
> anything we can do to help you complete the upload of your manuscript? Was
> there a problem and the manuscript should be withdrawn?
>
> I have added some instructions below that might help you complete the
> process. If these instructions won't help, please feel free to contact the
> journals office at 703-295-6290 or e-mail journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> .
>
> If we do not hear back from you within two weeks from the date of this
> letter we will presume that you are no longer interested in submitting a
> manuscript, and we will withdraw your submission.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you soon.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jennifer Parresol
> Journal of Engineering Mechanics
>
> 1. To complete the upload process please log into the Editorial Management
> System, by clicking the link provided http://jrnemeng.edmgr.com/ <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> and
> follow these steps. Click on Incomplete submission under your Authors
> Main menu. Then click edit submission. This will bring up your submission
> and you can continue through the process until your PDF is built. Then
> click on submit, this will send your submission to ASCE for further
> processing.
>
> 2. To remove your submission please log into the Editorial Management
> System by clicking the link http://jrnemeng.edmgr.com/ <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> and follow these
> steps. Click on Incomplete Submission under your Authors Main menu. Then
> click on remove submission. Once you have clicked on remove submission
> your file is closed and you will not be able to edit that file again.
>

 

[bill smith]

Below is correspondence with ASCE:

Dear Anders,

I checked the folder and I do not see anything. Is there anyway you can fax it. I will check with a few other people to see if they have it.

Jennifer

________________________________

From: Hermine BJORKMAN [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Fri 9/11/2009 2:20 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Cc: Corotis@Colorado.EDU; BJORKMAN
Subject:


Dear Jennifer,

pls advise what is going on!

Kind regards

Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: "ASCE Journal-Submissions1" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Anders,

I will check on Tuesday when I am back in the office.

Jennifer

________________________________

From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thu 8/27/2009 4:35 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Subject: Re: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Jennifer!

It was sent early June! With nice stamps of Monaco. Pls have a look in your
mail box.

best regards

Anders


----- Original Message -----
From: "ASCE Journal-Submissions1" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:25 PM
Subject: RE: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Anders,

I just have to wait to receive the signed copyright form in the mail.

Jennifer Parresol

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for Rule 8

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:30 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Subject: Re: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Dear Jennifer.

It says manuscript sent back to Author. The View Letter says I must sign the
Copyright agreement. Which I did per snail mail. Everything else is approved
since 3 June 2009.

What else can I do?

br

Anders


----- Original Message -----
From: "ASCE Journal-Submissions1" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: "Anders Björkman" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:27 PM
Subject: RE: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Dear Anders,

Please log into the system and see if there is a duplicate.

Jennifer

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for Rule 8

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:57 PM
To: ASCE Journal-Submissions1
Subject: Re: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Importance: High

Dear Ms Parresol.

Very strange. The revisionen was completed in May or June and I also sent a
signed Copyright document to you via ordinary mail. I am waiting for the
paper to be published.

Best regards

Anders Björkman


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jennifer Parresol" <journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
To: <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> >
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:24 PM
Subject: Incomplete Submission for Journal of Engineering Mechanics


>
> Dear Mr Björkman,
>
> Thank you for registering with the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. When
> checking the system I noticed that you have started to revise your
> submission entitled "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin
> Towers in New York", but have not completed the process. Is there
> anything we can do to help you complete the upload of your manuscript? Was
> there a problem and the manuscript should be withdrawn?
>
> I have added some instructions below that might help you complete the
> process. If these instructions won't help, please feel free to contact the
> journals office at 703-295-6290 or e-mail journal-submissions1@asce.org <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> .
>
> If we do not hear back from you within two weeks from the date of this
> letter we will presume that you are no longer interested in submitting a
> manuscript, and we will withdraw your submission.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you soon.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jennifer Parresol
> Journal of Engineering Mechanics
>
> 1. To complete the upload process please log into the Editorial Management
> System, by clicking the link provided http://jrnemeng.edmgr.com/ <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> and
> follow these steps. Click on Incomplete submission under your Authors
> Main menu. Then click edit submission. This will bring up your submission
> and you can continue through the process until your PDF is built. Then
> click on submit, this will send your submission to ASCE for further
> processing.
>
> 2. To remove your submission please log into the Editorial Management
> System by clicking the link http://jrnemeng.edmgr.com/ <https://remote.asce.org/dana-cached/help/empty.html> and follow these
> steps. Click on Incomplete Submission under your Authors Main menu. Then
> click on remove submission. Once you have clicked on remove submission
> your file is closed and you will not be able to edit that file again.
>

And this is after Ross Corotis said your paper had been accepted ? Do yu still have that email ?