Bazant's WTC Work Is Badly Flawed, and Likely a Deliberate Cover-Up for Demolition

[spooked911]

[LARED]

1. Gee wiz, can you even get through the first 100 words without a

blatant error?

The paper now does not have any designation that it was submitted to a journal, indicating it was either withdrawn from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, or it was rejected from that journal. The paper is not listed as being submitted to a new journal currently.

It's listed right in the ASCE library - March 2007 pg 308

http://ascelibrary.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JENMDT&Volume=133&Issue=3

[spooked911]

3. Your error-- that is not the same paper

try again

one would think if it was accepted somewhere, he would note it on the manuscript

[LARED]

4. I see my error

your statement belies your misunderstanding of how things work in the academic world

The paper now does not have any designation that it was submitted to a journal, indicating it was either withdrawn from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, or it was rejected from that journal. The paper is not listed as being submitted to a new journal currently.

The paper is not submitted to any journal yet, as far as I can tell. Bazant is a professor at Northwestern University. The paper is something he and others are currently working on at the University. Your statement that the paper was either withdrawn or rejected by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics is simply not true.

BTW, here's a link to the paper from the University http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

You can find his email here http://directory.northwestern.edu/index.cgi?pq=Bazant&query=handle%3D52616e646f6d4956656a070e2f41f9405c541d57a16404c314823059f8c6fc9223ad0b416f83c299&more=1&a=0 if you really want to contact him to let him know Spooked is flushing out his cover up.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. actually, it could well be true

I've seen other, older statements that that paper was submitted to JEM. I don't see why it matters. I think JEM has published four WTC pieces coauthored by Bazant so far (two rather short). It's not inconceivable that JEM could express lack of interest in "one for the thumb."

Now, if JEM published a retraction or refutation of the other four, then the critics would have something to crow about.

[mrgerbik]

8. the critics 'crow' because in the end its a THEORY accepted as fact

The thesis can be questioned.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. huh?

That is precisely what creationists say about evolution. And it will be an excellent point, if they ever manage to refute evolutionary theory.

If the "Anonymous Physicist" has some winning arguments, I look forward to seeing them in peer-reviewed journals.

[mrgerbik]

10. we're not talking about creationism ... why muddy the waters????

use a better example

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. unfortunately, I think it is a good example

Granted, hypotheses of progressive collapse without controlled demolition have nowhere near the standing of evolutionary theory. If there were strong arguments against those hypotheses, it should be much easier to get them into peer reviewed journals.

Yet the 9/11 folks gnash their teeth and create their own "peer-reviewed" "Journal of 9/11 Studies." If you don't see the parallelism with creationism, either you don't know much about it, or you are in denial.

Of course, the motivations are different, and the 9/11 movement has no single sacred text. But as I watch 9/11 folks respond to reasoned criticism here, as I've watched creationists respond on IIDB, the moves are remarkably similar.

If you don't like it, don't shoot the messenger. Go look, see what I'm talking about, and figure out how to make the change. Don't let people con you that your critics are all afraid of "questioning the official story."

[LARED]

11. You're right. It could have been submitted

but it makes no difference.

What I object to is the insinuation that it is a problem.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. yup, I object to that too

My impression of that paper is that it probably doesn't fit in a leading journal because it is answering, at length, questions that the profession doesn't have -- so it is properly a working paper, without prejudice to the soundness of the content. (Of course, it is far from my field.)

The idea that Bazant is part of a cover-up.... And some people wonder why we talk about "conspiracy theory"?! Sigh.

[wildbilln864]

5. busted again! n/t

[dailykoff]

2. Good job spooked.

More Reaganomic window dressing built around carefully concealed whoppers and good on ya for taking it all apart and proving it.

[wildbilln864]

6. Good wor,k spooked! Thank you. n/t

[Laurier]

14. Anonymous sources spouting unsupported nonsense hardly undermine Bazant's work.

And it most certainly does not support an allegation of "deliberate cover up" by Bazant.

What is it with members of the so-called "truth" movement making unfounded and unsupported allegations of serious criminal offences all the time?

It seems to me that if you are going to level such accusations, you should come equipped with more than a couple of anonymous internet posters touting bunny cages and unfounded allegations of the use of nuclear devices.

[spooked911]

15. You have strange definitions for "unsupported" and "unfounded"

Did you even bother to read the critiques?

[Sweet Pea]

16. Interesting

Have you ever thought about publishing all those articles in a peer-reviewed engineering quarterly or journal? You seem to know exactly what is going on and what happened and as such you must have a high level of confidence that you have the definitive answers that the world has been searching for lo these many years.

We await your published and peer-reviewed articles.

Unless, of course, you are content to sit here on DU and on that blog of yours and, like Lear, rail at the storm and accomplish nothing.