Bazant in a nutshell

[pgimeno]

Two of the tallest buildings in the world collapsed. And I agree. I think most structural engineers did not anticipate a collapse.

Your belief is at odds with what I've actually heard from architects and engineers that have commented on the subject. In most cases they anticipated the collapse.

But why the rush to explain it before a standard investigation could take place? Why would Bazant assume he knows more than structural engineers?

Bazant is a structural engineer. In my view, his expertise let him realize the collapse was inevitable. He rushed to explain why, as being the first would mean he would get some publicity. Or it was just the kind of article that would fit the publication and he felt compelled to do it because of being a hot topic and because of his understanding. There are many reasons why he may have wanted to publish it, which don't involve any dark motivations.

Not only did he get it so terribly wrong, but he was in such a hurry to try to explain it all away. No one was asking him. Why not wait for appropriate expertise?

He got it terribly right


For context, I believe the paper that was published 2 days after 9/11 was this one:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/404.pdf

In response to cmckay, I don't think it was peer-reviewed at all. It was published in SIAM News: http://www.siam.org/news/ and following the link you can see the kind of articles that get published there.

Welcome to SIAM News, the newsjournal of the applied mathematics community! SIAM News offers:

• technical overview articles written by experts in a wide range of disciplines
• reports of progress and breakthroughs in research
• commentaries on the issues -- political, ethical, educational, and scientific --
  that affect the mathematical sciences community
• news about legislation and funding issues, people, and university programs
  comprehensive calendar of events
• professional opportunity advertisements from all over the world
• and much more. . . . see for yourself!

I think that Bazant's paper counts as a "technical overview article written by an expert in a discipline". I don't think technical overviews need to be peer-reviewed to be published there.

 

[ergo]

Your belief is at odds with what I've actually heard from architects and engineers that have commented on the subject. In most cases they anticipated the collapse.

Bazant commented in one of his own papers that few structural engineers expected the towers to collapse.

Bazant is a structural engineer. In my view, his expertise let him realize the collapse was inevitable. He rushed to explain why, as being the first would mean he would get some publicity.

His expertise in the material properties of concrete told him this? And given the model he presents, which makes no attempt to explain the actual structural failures, no, he doesn't believe the collapse was inevitable.

His model, in all its various revisions, has been shown to grossly over-exaggerate, as well as leave out critical elements, especially in his calculation of available energy. It's fraud. That he appears to have influence as to what papers debunking him get published in JEM doesn't change this fact.

 

[cmckay]

His expertise in the material properties of concrete told him this?

According to his Wikipedia page (I can't post links)

4th paragraph...

"... and is a registered Structural Engineer in the state of Illinois."


Besides, he's co-written an entire textbook on structures.
I can't post links yet, but it's called Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories


Still want to doubt his expertise?

 

[ergo]

What is his experience with steel-framed highrises?

His entry into the debate was entirely voluntary. He is hardly the world's expert on structural steel or highrise design.

 

[twinstead]

What is his experience with steel-framed highrises?

His entry into the debate was entirely voluntary. He is hardly the world's expert on structural steel or highrise design.

So what do the REAL experts say about the WTC collapses then?

 

[Miragememories]

It is amazing how many people say; "I knew it was going to happen", after it happens.

Of all the structural experts watching the WTC NEWS coverage on 9/11, I do not recall a single report prior to the collapses, of anyone offering an expectation that each 110 story tower would be totally destroyed in a fountain-like high speed collapse.

MM

 

[cmckay]

It is amazing how many people say; "I knew it was going to happen", after it happens.

Of all the structural experts watching the WTC NEWS coverage on 9/11, I do not recall a single report prior to the collapses, of anyone offering an expectation that each 110 story tower would be totally destroyed in a fountain-like high speed collapse.

MM

You expect to see a report done in less than an hour with an engineer watching it on TV during working hours?

I think journalists were a lot more interested in WHO did it, not what would happen to the building.

 

[LSSBB]

What is his experience with steel-framed highrises?

His entry into the debate was entirely voluntary. He is hardly the world's expert on structural steel or highrise design.

Why don't you just go ahead and read some of his pre-9/11 work in the subject and let us know your professional critique of his skills?

 

[DGM]

It is amazing how many people say; "I knew it was going to happen", after it happens.

Of all the structural experts watching the WTC NEWS coverage on 9/11, I do not recall a single report prior to the collapses, of anyone offering an expectation that each 110 story tower would be totally destroyed in a fountain-like high speed collapse.

MM

You would think that if they all thought it was suspicious, one would have presented a case why.

To date, this has not happened.

They're all afraid to lose their job, huh?

 

[beachnut]

It... , of anyone offering an expectation that each 110 story tower would be totally destroyed in a fountain-like high speed collapse.

MM

Talk to Robertson, he designed the structure and thinks 911 truth claims are nonsense. The number one expert on the structure thinks 911 truth is nonsense.

A simple momentum model explains the speed of the collapse. Unable to do the math and physics to understand 911; 911 truth resorts to old fashion middle ages like nonsense of making up nonsense. Thermite being the dumbest lie, beam weapons the biggest fantasy lie, and foam steel the insane entry.

Bazant can do the work on the back of a napkin. 911 truth math and physics free, unarmed to comprehend fire and collapse, no chance with Bazant. The big conspiracy; why the 911 truth followers were left behind, no math, no physics. No child left behind failed.

 

[Miragememories]

You would think that if they all thought it was suspicious, one would have presented a case why.

To date, this has not happened.

They're all afraid to lose their job, huh?

Well we've certainly seen how whistle-blowers are treated.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

MM

 

[DGM]

Well we've certainly seen how whistle-blowers are treated.



MM

What "whistle blowers" are you talking about?

Not Snowden?

 

[cmckay]

Well we've certainly seen how whistle-blowers are treated.



MM

This still doesn't explain why 911 truthers have gotten virtually no support from engineers in foreign countries. Not even in the middle east where 9/11 conspiracy theories are the most popular.

 

[twinstead]

Well we've certainly seen how whistle-blowers are treated.

Yea, and of course one can look at the history of the Earth and plainly see that nobody has ever risked their jobs, their freedom, or their very lives to expose wrongdoing.

 

[MarkLindeman]

This still doesn't explain why 911 truthers have gotten virtually no support from engineers in foreign countries. Not even in the middle east where 9/11 conspiracy theories are the most popular.

It doesn't explain the U.S. case, either. DGM's question is on point: What "whistle-blowers" is MM talking about? Usually the term is applied to people who leak classified information. Are Bazant's colleagues around the United States (and the rest of the world) stifling their dissent for fear that they will end up like Bradley Manning? How would that work, exactly?

 

[DGM]

Usually the term is applied to people who leak classified information.

More accurate is the person is giving out inside information on illegal activity. Just leaking classified information (if there is no illegal activity) is known as treason.

 

[chrismohr]

It is amazing how many people say; "I knew it was going to happen", after it happens.

Of all the structural experts watching the WTC NEWS coverage on 9/11, I do not recall a single report prior to the collapses, of anyone offering an expectation that each 110 story tower would be totally destroyed in a fountain-like high speed collapse.

MM

You're setting a pretty high bar there my friend. Certainly no one predicted how fast the building would fall, how big the plume would be, etc. However... Going from memory, I do recall that the guys in the police helicopters reported an imminent collapse as they saw what was happening at the top of one of the Towers. Then there was the engineer who predicted the eventual collapse of Building 7 about 5 hours before it happened (said it would take about 5 hours). Then there was the fire chief who ordered the firefighters to evacuate the towers because it was looking unsound (falling plaster etc). And there was also the firemana who talkeed to BBC and said look at Building 7, how it's leaning, it ain't gonna last. And Chief Nigro who decided Building 7 was unstable and told firefighters to pull back to prevenmt further loss of life. These are just off the top of my head.

However, I think there is some truth to the claim that many engineers etc were pretty flummoxed by the whole thing. It had never happened before and, going from memory again, some experts did say they didn't understand how it all happened.

 

[pgimeno]

It is amazing how many people say; "I knew it was going to happen", after it happens.

I posted here a collection of Spanish people mentioning they expected the collapse: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8325132&postcount=2249

Two of the quotations are quite precise on putting these expectations in context, contradicting your argument. Let me translate:

PS2: By the way, I am an architect. I never believed the WTC7 demolition theory, nor in strange theories about the twin towers collapse. I also saw the attacks live, just when I was meeting with some mates (three more architects and an engineer). I remember that a good while before the first tower fell, all five of us that were there (no longer over the plans, but in front of the TV) agreed on the same thing: "Both towers are going to fall as if they were cardboard, like a house of cards". The engineer didn't know the structure of the towers, but we the architects in there did. All four of us had traveled at different times to NY, and all four had visited the Twin Towers. All four knew the novel structural system that bore both skyscrapers. We had seen it twelves of times in technical and design magazines, and we also had seen it in place in NY... I still keep the drawings we did to explain between ourselves how the towers were going to fall... And less than half an hour later, the first tower fell just as we imagined. Just like that. Then the second one. Just like that. I remember a mate making a joke about those drawings we just made: "We'll have to burn them (the drawings), because if some day the FBI finds out, we're going to be in trouble".

http://natsufan.livejournal.com/35491.html#t875683

I saw the mess live in the A Coruña College of Architecture. Well, we were betting about how long would each tower stand when none of them had fallen yet. I didn't give them more than an hour, just by eyeballing. I wasn't off by much.

http://www.forocoches.com/foro/showthread.php?p=41256085#post41256085

It doesn't look to me like people who just "post-guess". They have pretty living memories of what they said, did and thought, and involve other people who were with them. You could argue that the third testimony I posted, the one from Ricardo Aroca, might fall in that category:

When I saw the towers kept burning, I thought it was inevitable for them to fall.

But you can't argue the same for the other two testimonies.

 

[pgimeno]

What is his experience with steel-framed highrises?

His entry into the debate was entirely voluntary. He is hardly the world's expert on structural steel or highrise design.

Neither is Tony, to say one. So what? The buildings were structures, he is an expert in structures, and treats them as structures. Therefore, he was a qualified expert in the matter.

 

[MarkLindeman]

More accurate is the person is giving out inside information on illegal activity. Just leaking classified information (if there is no illegal activity) is known as treason.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to define the term -- especially because there are multiple definitions -- just to indicate a general neighborhood.

The drafters of the U.S. Constitution cleverly wrote in a definition of "treason" in that context, which wouldn't in general include "just leaking classified information." But the word gets used pretty freely (and I don't want to drag us off topic), so I accept your .