Bazant paper, Bjorkman discussion, Bazant closure

LashL

Goddess of Legaltainment™
LashL
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
36,711
While there has been quite a lot of discussion here about the Bazant, Le, et al paper and the subsequent Bjorkman "discussion" of it, I don't think Bazant and Le's Closure which was also published in the July 2010 edition of the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics has ever been posted here, so I thought I would post it in its own thread for posterity rather than having it get lost in one of the lengthy threads about the original paper or one of Heiwa's lengthy threads about his planned/delayed/eventual response to it.

Attribution: ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, July 2010, Volume 136, No. 7, pp. 933-935.

Here's a link to the short pdf.

Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Thanks LashL!

Can we get this, (possibly along with the entire paper?) put into the resources section also?
 
Thanks, AZCat. I think I may have seen that link that Panoply Prefect provided in that earlier thread (thanks, Panoply Prefect) but the link is to a message board post so, yes, I think it's better to have a link to the discussion and closure as actually published from the original source (rather than being an unattributed post on a message board and therefore subject to question if used as a resource later). Plus, that whole "getting lost in the noise" thing that Heiwa threads were prone to, of course. Thus, this thread. I don't expect it to get a lot of traffic; I just want it to be available and easy to find if/when someone wants to reference the as-published document. :)
 
LashL said:
Thanks, AZCat. ... :)
Click to expand...
good idea



"Claim is absurd. A delusion." , Bazant agrees with most of JREF on this issue.

Neat if Tony, ferm2, Major Tom, and Derek would have the guts to send a letter with their non-claims. None of them have been as detailed as Heiwa is with is delusion. They can't define their meaningless claims to put in a letter.

This will help find it easier, it was somewhere with Heiwa stuff.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
While there has been quite a lot of discussion here about the Bazant, Le, et al paper and the subsequent Bjorkman "discussion" of it, I don't think Bazant and Le's Closure which was also published in the July 2010 edition of the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics has ever been posted here, so I thought I would post it in its own thread for posterity rather than having it get lost in one of the lengthy threads about the original paper or one of Heiwa's lengthy threads about his planned/delayed/eventual response to it.

Attribution: ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, July 2010, Volume 136, No. 7, pp. 933-935.

Here's a link to the short pdf.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Thanks much for that. Sounds like an interesting read.
 
I never read Heiwa'`s piece before, or indeed much of anything by Heiwa.

The flaw that he doesn`t actually calculate any velocities, momentum, energies is too striking to be (dis)missed.
 
Oh my.

I hadn't actually read the letter and the reply. That beatdown was classic and rather immense.

I particularly love these sections

he presents no meaningful mechanics argument against the gravity driven progressive collapse model of our paper. His claim that "the authors' theory is wrong" is groundless.
Click to expand...

and

The discusser claims that no differential equations are required to model the collapse. This is incorrect. The intuitive guesses emanating from his disconnected quantitative estimates prove nothing.
Click to expand...
bolding mine

and
If the discusser rejects the differential equation form of the equations of motion based on a smeared continuum approximation, he could be credible only if he formulated and solved discrete equations of motion.
Click to expand...
Which he doesn't.

and
The discusser claims that the progressive collapse model we developed in the paper does not consider the energy required to compress the rubble. This claim is absurd.
Click to expand...

and

On the video and direction of crushing.
... the discusser conclude that the tower top motion is caused by "part C becoming shorter while part A remains intact." This is a delusion.
Click to expand...

and discussing the rubble pile issue.
Since this figure is only schematic, his point is meaningless. Besdies, he ignores the fact that much of the rubble... has been ejected during the crushdown and that the tall narrow pile as sketched exists only for a split second just before the moment at which layer B hits the ground.
Click to expand...

All bolding is mine for emphasis. I really wish that Heiwa was still here... (as this beatdown was rather amazing and lots of fun to read.)

Come on Derek... I'm sure you can do better... submit an ARTICLE to JEM. Get something peer reviewed...
 
That exchange between Heiwa and Bazant e.al. was a major case of crush-down. No crush-up. Leaving quite an impressive rubble pile :D
 
beachnut said:
Neat if Tony, femr2 , Major Tom, and Derek would have the guts to send a letter with their non-claims.
Click to expand...

What are you blathering about ?

I have no issue with the Bazant et al model in it's correct context and application, namely that it represents an idealised case in energetics terms. There are flaws in assumption, but the outcome would not change drastically, namely enough energy availibility given the initial state assumptions.

As you know, there is a thread here for clarification of application, the outcome of which is fairly clear, namely that many folk have incorrectly applied the model to real-world behaviour. Further instances of such will, I am sure, be highlighted in that thread as-and-when they occur.

Whilst the authors themselves are guilty of over-stepping the bounds of applicability, I see no point in informing them that numerous others have misunderstood the context of their study and misapplied it. That's like complaining to the toaster manufacturer because it won't play DVD's :)
 
femr2 said:
What are you blathering about ?

...
Whilst the authors themselves are guilty of over-stepping the bounds of applicability, I see no point in informing them that numerous others have misunderstood the context of their study and misapplied it. That's like complaining to the toaster manufacturer because it won't play DVD's :)
Click to expand...

Your CD delusion. Publish it; what are you, blathering about? Nonsense. Publish your proof of CD and thermite; or the 175 flight junk. Good luck.

Whilst, My toaster plays DVDs.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
What are you blathering about ?

I have no issue with the Bazant et al model in it's correct context and application, namely that it represents an idealised case in energetics terms. There are flaws in assumption, but the outcome would not change drastically, namely enough energy availibility given the initial state assumptions.

As you know, there is a thread here for clarification of application, the outcome of which is fairly clear, namely that many folk have incorrectly applied the model to real-world behaviour. Further instances of such will, I am sure, be highlighted in that thread as-and-when they occur.

Whilst the authors themselves are guilty of over-stepping the bounds of applicability, I see no point in informing them that numerous others have misunderstood the context of their study and misapplied it. That's like complaining to the toaster manufacturer because it won't play DVD's :)
Click to expand...

thumbup.gif

That is my understanding of the situation.
 
Oystein said:
That exchange between Heiwa and Bazant e.al. was a major case of crush-down. No crush-up. Leaving quite an impressive rubble pile :D
Click to expand...
I think Heiwa is still pushing his nonsense. Truth is not the real goal of 911 truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom