• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jones' Critique of Bazant and Bazant's reply

MikeW said:
Go here. This is a new version, so anyone who had the old file should download this one as well.
Click to expand...

That worked, thanks!

And wow, what a total smackdown indeed!

Some highlights :D

Bazant said:
None of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct...

The discusser is not correct in repeatedly claiming that Newton’s third law is violated in the paper...

This concept is so central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is never even mentioned in publications...

Contrary to the discusser’s claim which is based on his understanding of Newton’s third law...

This is a fundamental misunderstanding...

The discusser could have imagined it easily, even without calculations...

The discussers’ statement ... shows a misunderstanding of the mechanics of failure...

The discusser cannot have it both ways...

It is a misrepresentation of evidence...

The discussers overlook two crucial facts... ​
Click to expand...


Jones & Co. should really feel embarrassed by now.

 
Last edited:
until now only Mr. Bazant felt somehow "embarrassed". :o

"I'm told by a reliable source that after this thread was started here, someone posted it over at Jones' site and that several days later, Steven Jones got his knickers in a knot about it, claiming, among other things, that Bazant posted a 2007 draft of Jones' and Gourley's "paper" that Bazant didn't have permission to post. Apparently, Jones also distanced himself from the Jones and Gourley "paper", saying that he removed his name from it because of timing issues with publication.

It was subsequently removed from Bazant's Northwestern page.

So, its removal might well have been a result of complaints by Jones and friends. "
 
MikeW said:
Go here. This is a new version, so anyone who had the old file should download this one as well.
Click to expand...

No links work except this one ... and Jones is not there.

But have you seen A person named Gourley says in the link:

"Newton’s third law states that all forces occur in pairs and
these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
In other words, for every action force, there is an equal and opposite
reaction force. Applying Newton’s third law to the collapse
of the Twin Towers, it is clear that the downward force imposed
on Part B by the upper Part C generates an equal but opposite
upward force. It logically follows that if the downward force generated
when Part C impacts Part B is destructive, then the equal
and opposite upward force generated in accordance with Newton’s
third law will be destructive. Instead of embracing this basic
law of physics, the paper treats Part C as a rigid body during the
crush-down phase, then allows Part C to start deforming only at
the start of the crush-up phase:

After the lower crushing front hits the ground, the upper
crushing front of the compacted zone can begin propagating
into the falling upper part (C) of the tower . . . This
will be called the crush-up phase . . . (p. 313 of the paper)

In this discussion, we assert that the crushing front will propagate
deep into the falling Part C) long before the crushing front
hits the ground, so that the upper Part C does not remain a rigid
body as it crushes the lower part of the Tower. Thus, all the
paper’s differential equations and integrals are questionable because
they fail to comport with Newton’s third law as applies to
the fundamental physical realities of each building.
"

This is my argument. Bravo, Gourley!

Bazant replies further down:

"1. Newton’s Third Law: The discusser (Gourley) is not correct in repeatedly
claiming that Newton’s third law is violated in the paper
and particularly in concluding that the “two-phase collapse
scenario is scientifically implausible because it ignores
Newton’s third law and the equal but opposite upward force
dictated by it.” As explained at the outset in every course on
mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied,
since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or
internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of
equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined
cut through the material or structure. This concept is so
central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident
to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is
never even mentioned in publications."

Strange answer, isn't it. 1-0 or 10-0 to Gourley! Gourley caught Bazant with his pants down!
 
Heiwa said:
Strange answer, isn't it.
Click to expand...


"Strange answer" is not a counter-argument. Which part of Bazant's explanation of why Gourley is wrong, is incorrect?

And the answer is not strange at all.

Gourley is wrong. Bazant states he is wrong, and why he is wrong.

If in fact Bazant is wrong and Gourley correct, there should be no difficulty in obtaining letters to that effect from appropriately qualified faculty members of schools that teach engineering courses in mechanics of materials. Has Gourley done so? Have you? If not, why should anyone listen to either of your opinions on the question?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
"Strange answer" is not a counter-argument. Which part of Bazant's explanation of why Gourley is wrong, is incorrect?

And the answer is not strange at all.

Gourley is wrong. Bazant states he is wrong, and why he is wrong.

If in fact Bazant is wrong and Gourley correct, there should be no difficulty in obtaining letters to that effect from appropriately qualified faculty members of schools that teach engineering courses in mechanics of materials. Has Gourley done so? Have you? If not, why should anyone listen to either of your opinions on the question?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Dear Myriad!

Bazant refers to every course on mechanics of materials, where this law is automatically satisfied, since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined cut through the material or structure, bla, bla, bla.

Gourley talks about two bodies impacting and the external forces acting on them. No cuts, etc. Evidently the lower structure Part B generates an external force on Part C at impact.

And Bazant ignores that. Bazant does not reply to Gourley. Bazant invents an answer that has nothing to do with the question. Standard tactics when you are caught ... you know.

And Bazant ignores completely that the upper Part C cannot be, ever was, or remained rigid at/after impact. In my view it is clear that Bazant knows he is wrong ... and therefore presents a stupid answer. Anyway, he is retired. He can say anything. In my view he is a fool.

Pls, do not refer to qualified faculty members in this discussion, etc. They have their own individual interests. Why disturb them? Be realistic. Apply your common sense. Be honest to yourself.

Kind regards

Heiwa
 
Yea. Forget the experts. They don't know what they are talking about anyway. Just use common sense and be true to yourself.

Got it. Thanks bro.
 
Just look at the collapse! It was so obvious! Bazant can't obfuscate the matter with "his facts", his "calculations" and his "science".
 
Last edited:
I must say find Bazant's presentation to be excellent. His points are presented in a clear and simple way. Just read his first response and see.
 
Mince said:
Bazant can't obfuscate the matter with "his facts", his "calculations" and his "science".
Click to expand...

Actually, you're right, he can't!

Just look at the results of his calculations. At the top of page 919, first full sentence, he claims that "crush-up simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower and 26 mm for the South Tower."

Translated into practical terms, this means that when the upper section of floors impacted the lower section of floors, the upper section only suffered between an inch and an inch and a half dent before utterly destroying the lower floors. Think about that for a minute. A 1.5 inch dent. After slamming into an intact steel structure below.

I'm amazed he actually had the gall to publish that paper at all. An inch and a half dent? Really? Is that a sick joke? A misprint?
 
James Gourley is actually happy about his paper being published, but then starts whining. Even Ryan Mackey gets his share of complaints.

Gourley said:
While I am excited this paper will be reaching new audiences, and I would like to share that fact with you, I am writing today for a different purpose.

(snip)

Dr. Bazant’s steel temperature response also raises a serious issue which should have been caught in a fair peer review process. He basically argues that even if he did misrepresent the steel temperatures NIST reported, that doesn’t matter because much lower steel temperatures would still have caused the collapse. However, that is a red herring. Even assuming Dr. Bazant is correct that lower steel temperatures could have caused the collapse, did that give him the right to misrepresent it in the first place? This was apparently never asked, and Dr. Bazant was allowed to mislead JEM readers with voluminous, irrelevant argument.

There are many other problems with Dr. Bazant’s Closure paper that should have been caught during peer review. I plan to write separately on all of them, but do need to mention one more. If you look at the first full sentence on page 919 at the first link above, you see the results of Dr. Bazant’s mathematical equations. He basically claims that when the upper block of floors impacts the lower, intact steel structure, that the upper block suffers a dent of between about 1 inch and 1.5 inches, before completely destroying the lower section of floors. Does that make any sense at all? An inch and a half dent? When the upper section of floors slams into the stationary steel structure below? The absolute absurdity of Dr. Bazant’s results is the main reason I’m happy his Closure was allowed to be published. Dr. Bazant appears to be going to extreme lengths to prop up the gravity-only driven collapse scenario. For clues as to why, I recommend page 4 of Kevin Ryan’s paper on the connections between NIST and nanothermite here: (PDF 82kb)

Conclusion
I hope this story gets across the struggles we face in publishing articles in mainstream technical journals. It is one of many I could have told. I have been a co-author on other published papers with Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. After every single one of those is published, someone like Ryan Mackey writes to the editor of the journal criticizing their publication standards. He never addresses the substance of our papers, but instead tries to make the editors regret publishing our papers, basically because he says their journal will be seen as not credible in the scientific community. We are then forced to correspond further with the journal editors, with sometimes humorous exchanges that I won’t share without my co-authors’ consent. It usually ends with the editors recommending that Mackey submit his own response paper for publication (as I did for the Bazant/Verdure Paper) but he never does. It’s a constant battle we face.

I also hope other scientists and engineers out there join the fight, follow our lead, and try to publish papers in mainstream technical journals on this subject. Take my story to heart and don’t let it happen to you. Insist that you be treated fairly from the outset.

James Gourley
Click to expand...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18196
 
Last edited:
That piece at 911 Blogger is just one a miserable whine. There is good news, though. It looks like Gourlay has some equations, which he would have included but for JEM's restrictions:D



Gourlay said:
His Closure paper still derides me for not including equations
in support of my position, without mentioning that there is no way I could have done that and still complied with the 2000 word limit, and that I was not allowed to revise my paper by JEM staff. Any fair peer review would not have allowed him to say this. JEM knew full well I was required to comply with the 2000 word limit, while Dr. Bazant was not.
Click to expand...



Unfortunately, Gourlay did not trouble the folk at 911Flogger with his equations either. Are they a secret, Mr Gourlay?
 
Gourley said:
I have been a co-author on other published papers with Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. After every single one of those is published, someone like Ryan Mackey writes to the editor of the journal criticizing their publication standards. He never addresses the substance of our papers, but instead tries to make the editors regret publishing our papers, basically because he says their journal will be seen as not credible in the scientific community. We are then forced to correspond further with the journal editors, with sometimes humorous exchanges that I won’t share without my co-authors’ consent. It usually ends with the editors recommending that Mackey submit his own response paper for publication (as I did for the Bazant/Verdure Paper) but he never does. It’s a constant battle we face.
Click to expand...

In case anyone wonders, "every single one" Mr. Gourley is referring to above totals exactly two papers, the Bentham and The Environmentalist papers.

Mr. Gourley is correct that I do not attack these papers at their substance, because they have none. Instead, my objections note that such papers offer no hypothesis, no new data, and no new analysis; that they ignore previously published and reviewed works that would readily clear up their confusion, were they aware of and competent in understanding them; that their papers lack proper citations and references, and are inherently unrepeatable; and that their papers are unsuited for the publications in which they appear.

Mr. Gourley is also correct when he states the editors of those publications suggest I should submit my own paper in response. But the situation is very different. Since Dr. Bazant has put forth an engineering model, made scientific calculations, and made theoretical predictions, his papers are open for competing ideas, alternate models, better calculations, and different interpretations. Follow-up papers are appropriate.

For Gourley et al., however, they have provided none of these things. There is no content to challenge, and all one could do on scientific grounds is point to the many other papers on the topic. It is impossible to write a scientific criticism of a pseudo-scientific paper. The criticisms are editorial in nature.

Nonetheless, he is correct, officials at both publications have suggested I submit a response paper. At any other journal, this suggestion would be total madness -- one does not ordinarily submit a journal paper entitled something along the lines of "Fourteen Editorial Anomalies of the Recent Paper by Jones et al." -- yet that is exactly what these publications have suggested. However, since that also would involve my paying $700 cash (Bentham) or $3000 cash (The Environmentalist) to do so, I am not particularly surprised at their recommendation.

Draw your own conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom