You are simply not getting it...
Actually you are the one who is not getting it lexicon ... because it is simple and you are presuming complications. It was a lot simpler that you are claiming.
pgimeno specifically has it right and several others are also in the right ball park. But most of our debunkers are being generous and accepting some of the false complications you lexicon have imposed.
There are several basic issues where you have the logic in reverse - and AFAICS no-one has yet told you. Two of them are (a) The idea that what Bazant and Zhou's paper dealt with was complicated --it wasn't; AND (b) the idea that Bazant's reputation was on the line because he may get it wrong -- the risk to reputation would arise if he did not publish quickly.
Here's why your claims are wrong on both of those:
(A) It Wasn't a Complicated Topic
You are making out that the topic of B&Z's paper was complicated. It wasn't.
The paper is a write up of a simple engineering assignment at the level he would routinely assign to higher degree candidates. to put it in perspective take a similar problem at three levels.
(i) Buckling of a column under excess static load is a standard assignment calculation for graduate degree students;
(ii) Up one level of complexity and calculating buckling failure for a dynamically applied load onto a column is probably a Masters level routine assignment;
AND all that the BZ paper does is simply go up one more step and apply dynamic loading of a column to a whole building treating that building as if it was a single column.
(iii) So probably a Doctorate Level routine assignment.
Here is how the assignment could be specified:
SCENARIO
The World Trade Center Twin towers both collapsed yesterday after being hit by aircraft, damage imposed at a high level and fires started which progressed causing more damage.
Subsequently the top portion of tower fell onto the lower portion which continued a collapse down to ground level.
TASK.
Determine the energy available from the falling top portion and compare it with the resistance available from the lower tower.
Note it is a purely technical assignment. No reference to CD.
(B) The risk to his Reputation was if he Did Not Publish.
You claim that Bazant was risking his reputation if he published early. He wasn't - the risk was if he delayed or did not publish.
Bazant is a top level academic of established standing. Was then and still is. "Standing" in academia arises from publishing and prominence. All those in the relevant circles of the engineering and academic professions would be looking for "what does Bazant say?" By getting in early he has the easy path and gets in front of his rivals. Once he has tackled an easy task and got his name out there as first all the rivals have:
(p) to accept that they were second, third, later - effectively "also rans" in the race for status recognition. AND
(q)Bazant having tackled the easy question the next questions will be harder.
So it is a doubly handicapped race. The rival are late starters with a harder task.
Now tying those two together - his status depended on being there first and the problem he chose was simple so there was no risk of getting it wrong.
Your posts so far lexicon have IMO both those issues backwards. And AFAICS no-one has made these points explicitly. Viz: It was not a complicated task, it was easy; His reputation depended on being out there quickly; AND the risk of being wrong was zero.
(And I note no reference to "limit case modelling" - I would not be the least surprised if that came later. Whatever the sequence the limit case concept is irrelevant to the energy v resistance calculations.)
With those foundations in place lets look at your other points.
Bazant had zero evidence 48 hour post collapse that there was not some other mechanism i.e bombs, explosives, hand of god..involved in the collapses.
his paper is a simple engineering energy v resistance calculation. CD and other nefarious activities are irrelevant. Remember his starting point was "the top part of the tower is falling". (There are several more points opposing your comment but leave them aside for simplicity.)
It's a terrorist attack for crying out loud. There are people all over the news, in the papers, on the street saying bombs and explosions are being heard and or going off....
Without even debating those CD and explosions and media hysteria claims - so what? How are they relevant to the simple technical assignment which Bazant gave to Zhou?
...NO ONE has done the investigation to rule them out at that time...
Several point wrong here. Two of them will do. (i) The burden of proof is backwards. There never was, never has been a credible argument for CD. There is no need beyond global macro inspection to "rule them out" The need, if any, was for a case to rule them in. No such case on 9/13 - there still isn't one despite years of energy by truthers chasing the phantom of CD. (ii) The top level academics such as Bazant are the leaders in the trade of engineering. No one at that level is going to accept that an investigation by lesser mortals will be better than the combined efforts of academia.
...yet bazant does..why? Curiosity? Arrogance? Lucky guess?
Curiosity? - Maybe - it was self evident to most engineers. Took a bit longer for the lay people (and some slow thinking engineers
); Arrogance? - Undoubtedly a factor but the justified professional arrogance of one at the top of the tree AND Lucky guess? - decidedly not. The evidence was simple - planes hit and fires burned and top of building fell, THAT IS HIS STARTING POINT. Remember that realistic claims for CD, in the unlikely event that we ever see such a claim or claims, relate to the bit before Bazant's starting line. So CD is irrelevant for yet another reason.
...Fine he goes home a looks to see if its mathmatically possible...
Wrong - the building had already fallen. So "possible" was already known. The challenge was to show
why it would happen. Not the "possibility" which by that stage was 100% certainty.
Where did he get all the information, all the variables, to make his conclusions?
You could be surprised how little he needed AND how much, as Professor of Engineering, he already had at his fingertips.
If he's an expert, a professional, he's gonna want as many facts as he can get isn't he?
No - definitely no. He is going to want the facts which are
necessary to whatever claims he makes. Read the paper and identify what facts he used.
How did he know how much damage there was?
There was sufficient damage to cause the top part of tower to fall. Everyone in the world had that info available. That was all he needed. Remember his starting point. The top of tower was falling and his calculations START from that point. BTW that 95% rules out CD as relevant. (I can also prove the other 5% but it is a derail for here.) Bottom line is that even if there had been CD in the initiation it was before Bazant's calculations started. (Probably Zhou's calc BTW
)
They still don't know the extent of the damage or the temperature of the fire or anything else for that matter that would prove his case.
Whoever "they" is your argument is false. None of that class of information you refer to is relevant to his simple calculation.
Yet he somehow has all this 48 hours later?
false - he had
what he needed. Not the
"all this" from your strawman false claim.
...Can he prove it mathmatically, sure,..
That is no concession given that you are basing it on wrong assumptions. (In the jargon it is "right for the wrong reasons".)
... but why bother so early? Who is he trying to impress or convince?
Already explained at some length.
If you want more discussion please say so and identify what aspect.
(With my acknowledgement of contributions by beachnut, Redwood, DGM, pgimeno, LSSBB, Oystein, Dave Rogers, ElMondoHummus plus any I have missed who have tried to clarify the issues for lexicon) (And my noting of contributions by ergo and Major_Tom which seem to be confusing or derailing the discussion. [Yes - respectively - I have read them
])
