Question for Apollo20

[Golden Bear]

I was just wondering if you could provide an update on the progress your paper has made in the peer review process at Journal of Engineering Mechanics. The paper in question is here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...%206-22-07.pdf

If you have already received comments back from any peer reviewers, I would very much appreciate it if you could post them here (that is, as long as publicly disclosing peer review comments is not in violation of any ASCE guidelines or policies).

I searched the online ASCE publications database and didn't see any indication that it has actually been published, so I was just curious about its status.

Also, I notice in the current version available at the above link that the cover page has been altered from prior versions. In prior versions the paper stated that it had been submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics on May 27, 2007. Now it says that it was revised on June 22 and December 15, 2007. Is there any way you could share what portions of the paper were revised on these dates and the reasons for the revisions? Were they in response to peer review comments? I skimmed the paper and didn't see any errata, so again I am just curious about these revisions.

[Apollo20]

Golden Bear:

I really can't say too much about the paper by Bazant, Greening et al. other than (believe it or not), it's still being reviewed. I could add more but I do not wish to reveal confidential information I received a few weeks ago from Prof. Bazant on the status of our paper. I am sure you understand!

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Golden Bear:

I really can't say too much about the paper by Bazant, Greening et al. other than (believe it or not), it's still being reviewed.

Maybe they got the little note I sent.

[Golden Bear]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Golden Bear:

I really can't say too much about the paper by Bazant, Greening et al. other than (believe it or not), it's still being reviewed. I could add more but I do not wish to reveal confidential information I received a few weeks ago from Prof. Bazant on the status of our paper. I am sure you understand!

So, are you saying you can't share what revisions were made to the paper on the dates indicated on the cover page? Nor can you share why said revisions were made?

I'm afraid I don't understand why this information can't be revealed. Like I said, I can see why you wouldn't want to share the peer review comments on the paper if doing so would violate ASCE policy, but it seems strange that you would not want to divulge exactly what revisions were made on those dates.

Can you cite to an ASCE policy or guideline that you would be in violation of if you were to post the peer review comments here? If not, it seems that you don't want any official criticisms of your paper published. Why would that be?

[Max Photon]

Sometimes the simplest words are the hardest to say.










Max Mihop

[jhunter1163]

If there is one thing that is apparent about Dr. Greening from his posting history, it is that he does not shrink from criticism. I am sure that full disclosure will be made in due course.

[afinemadness]

Golden Bear before you worry about grammatical changes to Apollo20's paper maybe you should address this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=102153

[alexg]

Originally Posted by afinemadness

Golden Bear before you worry about grammatical changes to Apollo20's paper maybe you should address this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=102153

Cue the crickets.

[Golden Bear]

Originally Posted by alexg

Cue the crickets.

I didn't come here to engage in a pointless argument with Gravy. I've got much better things to do with my time.

I am curious about this paper, though, and why it's taken so long get through peer review. I'm also curious about why Dr. Greening and/or his co-authors want to keep the peer review comments and revisions in response thereto, if any, so secret. If they can cite to an ASCE policy or guideline for keeping it secret, I'll be the first to say their actions are completely justified. But, if not, this is a very important topic and should be examined in the light of day.

To the person that said the revisions might be typographical in nature, surely if that were the case the authors wouldn't be reticent to disclose that fact, no? There's nothing shameful in correcting typographical errors, and indeed I would be very interested to find out that typographical revisions were the only revisions made.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

I didn't come here to engage in a pointless argument with Gravy. I've got much better things to do with my time.

I am curious about this paper, though, and why it's taken so long get through peer review. I'm also curious about why Dr. Greening and/or his co-authors want to keep the peer review comments and revisions in response thereto, if any, so secret. If they can cite to an ASCE policy or guideline for keeping it secret, I'll be the first to say their actions are completely justified. But, if not, this is a very important topic and should be examined in the light of day.

To the person that said the revisions might be typographical in nature, surely if that were the case the authors wouldn't be reticent to disclose that fact, no? There's nothing shameful in correcting typographical errors, and indeed I would be very interested to find out that typographical revisions were the only revisions made.

While I don't wish to speak unduly for Dr. Greening, in my own publishing experience, I don't share the comments of my reviewers with anyone. I consider them to be personal, and as such, I expect that my publishers and reviewers will not publish or disseminate that information without my consent. This is standard practice in the academic and scientific community.

[Apollo20]

Golden Bear:

I personally don't care if the whole world eventually sees the reviewers comments, but I am just one author, and NOT the principal author. If you want to try contacting Bazant, no one is stopping you. However, the way I see it, the paper is still being reviewed, so now is NOT the time to present this type of information on a public forum in the same way that a jury does not discuss a case until the trial is over.

[Golden Bear]

Originally Posted by The Almond

While I don't wish to speak unduly for Dr. Greening, in my own publishing experience, I don't share the comments of my reviewers with anyone. I consider them to be personal, and as such, I expect that my publishers and reviewers will not publish or disseminate that information without my consent. This is standard practice in the academic and scientific community.

I actually rather like the movement towards open peer review and hope it continues.

Aside from that, I don't think anyone would much care about peer review comments on a new method of measuring concrete shear strength, or some other esoteric and highly specialized inquiry that is typically published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. OTOH, here Dr. Greening et al. are dealing with a topic that carries with it major public policy implications. Therefore, I would equate this more closely with an official report, such as the official NIST report on the collapses, in which public comments on drafts are published for all to see. Yes, I know this paper isn't an official government report. However, it is discussing a topic that is very important to public policy, and I think there is a strong public interest in seeing the comments of the peer reviewers in this specific case.

I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine. By the way, has anyone ever asked you for a look at the peer review comments you received for a paper? If so, did you deny them? If so, why?

Also, how would you feel about a peer reviewer publishing her comments about a paper, but only after the paper under review was published in the Journal over the protest of the peer reviewer?

[Golden Bear]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Golden Bear:

I personally don't care if the whole world eventually sees the reviewers comments, but I am just one author, and NOT the principal author. If you want to try contacting Bazant, no one is stopping you. However, the way I see it, the paper is still being reviewed, so now is NOT the time to present this type of information on a public forum in the same way that a jury does not discuss a case until the trial is over.

Fair enough. I'm still a bit confused as to your (or your co-authors') justification for listing revision dates on the cover page, but nowhere actually identifying what revisions were made. Perhaps I will try and contact Bazant on this issue, as it appears he's the one driving the bus.

[Brainache]

So Golden Bear, you sound like you know a lot about the process, have you published any papers on this subject that us interested lay people might read?

I'm just curious.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

I actually rather like the movement towards open peer review and hope it continues.

I've heard no such rumor in any of the conferences I've attended. I don't think any legitimate scientific journal would ever publish or disseminate peer comments, and I would hope that the majority of scientists and engineers would have the professionalism not to publish any papers before the review process was completed.

Quote:

Aside from that, I don't think anyone would much care about peer review comments on a new method of measuring concrete shear strength, or some other esoteric and highly specialized inquiry that is typically published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. OTOH, here Dr. Greening et al. are dealing with a topic that carries with it major public policy implications. Therefore, I would equate this more closely with an official report, such as the official NIST report on the collapses, in which public comments on drafts are published for all to see. Yes, I know this paper isn't an official government report. However, it is discussing a topic that is very important to public policy, and I think there is a strong public interest in seeing the comments of the peer reviewers in this specific case.

The fact that JoEM is a privately owned journal invalidates your argument. It does not matter if the subject is of national interest, the comments and nature of the peer review process are the possessions of the reviewers, authors and publishers, and not anyone else.

Quote:

I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine. By the way, has anyone ever asked you for a look at the peer review comments you received for a paper?

Never. I don't even allow my reviewers to see the comments that other reviewers have written. My current employer requires no fewer than 5 separate people to review my paper before I can send it off for review at a journal.

Quote:

If so, did you deny them? If so, why?

I absolutely would deny anyone the freedom to review the comments of other reviewers. I do so because their comments are a matter of personal correspondence between myself and them.

Quote:

Also, how would you feel about a peer reviewer publishing her comments about a paper, but only after the paper under review was published in the Journal over the protest of the peer reviewer?

Said reviewer would simply write an article to be published in a later version of the journal expressing her concerns. There would be no need to publish her notes as they were.

[DGM]

Reading this it sounds like someone should talk to the journal of 911 studies. I think all they do for review is run it through spell check.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by The Almond

I've heard no such rumor in any of the conferences I've attended. I don't think any legitimate scientific journal would ever publish or disseminate peer comments, and I would hope that the majority of scientists and engineers would have the professionalism not to publish any papers before the review process was completed.

Yes it would open quiet a can of worms. What would one do, facing a document produced by a close friend in the community, knowing any comments may be made public.

It can put the person in an ugly situation - be honest and destroy a friendship, be kind and risk your own reputation in the field

[Max Photon]

Maybe the ASCE shipping container of meritorious ribbons got delayed
(what, with the terrorism and all).

[T.A.M.]

I love a discussion about Greening etal releasing details on a paper (comments or otherwise) while S. Jones will release practically nothing of his for verification...

TAM

[Golden Bear]

Originally Posted by The Almond

I've heard no such rumor in any of the conferences I've attended. I don't think any legitimate scientific journal would ever publish or disseminate peer comments, and I would hope that the majority of scientists and engineers would have the professionalism not to publish any papers before the review process was completed.

The journal Nature tried it in 2006, but ultimately (sadly) rejected it. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html

I've seen other references to journals showing interest in it, including a medical journal in Australia.

I personally feel it would bring more accountability into the peer review process, but I realize there are good arguments for and against. We should be clear, as well, that I'm not arguing for the disclosure of the names of the peer reviewers, just the comments. Perhaps what I'm advocating is a kind of hybrid open peer review. I don't think the comments need to be published alongside the paper in the physical journal, but with the relative ease of publishing content online, I don't see any reason why reviewer comments shouldn't be published online for others to view.

As has been discussed in other threads on this forum, a peer reviewed published paper isn't necessarily the gospel truth on a particular subject. Allowing the other scientists to see the reviewer comments may give them insights into flaws in the paper that they otherwise might not see.

Quote:

The fact that JoEM is a privately owned journal invalidates your argument. It does not matter if the subject is of national interest, the comments and nature of the peer review process are the possessions of the reviewers, authors and publishers, and not anyone else.

I hope you realize I was analogizing, and arguing for public disclosure in this specific case. I know there is obviously no obligation or requirement on the part of JEM or the authors to publish the comments, and I'm not advocating that anyone force JEM or the authors to publish the comments. I was merely making a public policy argument on why they should be published in this instance voluntarily. Again, I figured you would disagree, and that's fine with me.

Quote:

Said reviewer would simply write an article to be published in a later version of the journal expressing her concerns. There would be no need to publish her notes as they were.

Good point.

[Gravy]

Still waiting, Golden Bear.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

Fair enough. I'm still a bit confused as to your (or your co-authors') justification for listing revision dates on the cover page, but nowhere actually identifying what revisions were made. Perhaps I will try and contact Bazant on this issue, as it appears he's the one driving the bus.

Who would know? You are confused on 9/11 also, what is new?

Who is driving yours? 9/11 truth a runaway bus, confused and fact less. Great question to Greening, he answers twice and you still quibble and rant mindlessly towards what end? At least he answered your question.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I love a discussion about Greening etal releasing details on a paper (comments or otherwise) while S. Jones will release practically nothing of his for verification...

TAM

The contrast is between a real scientist and an agenda-driven charlatan.

[Max Photon]

You know, I emailed Bazant, the President of Northwestern University, and the President of the ASCE regard the paper mentioned in the OP, and gently suggested that perhaps - just perhaps - they should stop the press, and make sure that...well, you know the rest.

So, I think a likely explanation for the paper's delay is that they are slow readers.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

You know, I emailed Bazant, the President of Northwestern University, and the President of the ASCE regard the paper mentioned in the OP, and gently suggested that perhaps - just perhaps - they should stop the press, and make sure that...well, you know the rest.

So, I think a likely explanation for the paper's delay is that they are slow readers.

you need to get over yourself

[Apollo20]

Max, you claim that you "emailed Bazant, the President of Northwestern University, and the President of the ASCE regard the paper mentioned in the OP"

Well, funny you should say that because Ace Baker assures me he did the exact same thing!

So, you can't take all the credit! (You guys aren't in cahoots by any chance?)

HOWEVER, I can tell you the REAL reason for the extended review of the paper is much more mundane ... but is something I have seen happen in academic/scientific circles many times before.

One day I will tell you all about it!

[Max Photon]

Just for fun, anyone care to speculate?

What is the mundane reason for the review delay?

Thus far we have:

• Max Photon's pestering
• Ace Baker's pestering
• The cross product of Max Photon's pestering and Ace Baker's pestering
• Typos
• Meritorious ribbon delivery snafu

But the pestering is situation-specific;
Even engineers can use spell check;
There is such a glut of meritorious ribbons that you can scoop them off the ground...

...so these can't be the reasons.


Anyone?

[T.A.M.]

oh no...well what will they do now that a couple of people have emailed them and told them to "hold the press"...lol

TAM

[Max Photon]

By the way, here was and still is my complaint...

From the abstract of Bazant et al.: Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers:...


"Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it has not been checked whether the recent allegations of controlled-demolition have any scientific merit. This present analysis proves that they do not."


I find this section of the abstract catastrophically misleading.

Am I not correct that Bazant is trying to say that this collapse analysis - which takes into account various modes of energy consumption - is more consistent with observations than is the notion that explosives cut the towers, contributing to near-free-fall collapse times? Well cutting is but one possible mode of demolishing the towers!

Now, the vast majority of people who read this paper are only going to read the abstract. They will naturally take this paper to mean that the world's Column God said NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of any type or mode whatsoever!

But does this paper PROVE that incendiaries were not used to get the towers moving, by helping cause the floors to sag, and columns to experience visco-elastic buckling?

Does Bazant's analysis (and his previous analysis) consider that the 600C steel temperature referenced might have been thermite-induced?

Bazant's analysis fits observations of the towers' movement. Does the analysis fit the observations seen in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C: the 7 major smoke releases - all 1 minute +/- a few seconds; the pressure pulses; the coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs; the white glows; a 10 minute metal fire; numerous metal flows; the white flashes; the hanging objects changing their positions over time? NIST says these phenomena are correlated!!! Does Bazant's analysis explain these correlated phenomena that reached a crescendo right before collapse?


Is it really warranted for someone with so much gravitas to strongly imply:

Column God proved that controlled-demolition has no scientific merit whatsoever, period.


It seems as bullying and irresponsible today as it did the first time I read it.


Does anyone see what I am talking about?

How does Bazant's paper disprove controlled-demolition by heat-weakening?

(Good grief! I use his paper to support controlled-demolition by heat-weakening.)


Max Baker

[Max Photon]

The crickets are now getting overtime.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

The crickets are now getting overtime.

Maybe you're annoying them in a kid sister kind of way. Maybe they believe you have no idea what you're talking about and won't waste any effort on a commoner. You know, they might think it's "cute" how Jonny Electron tries to talk on their level after having recently taken freshman physics, but they really don't have time for his antics.

Hey, I'm just guessing what their perspective might be...since you're apparently so worried about it.

[T.A.M.]

Max:

The author is not responsible to research every single damn CT on how the explosives may have been used, where they were put, who put them there, what type they were etc...

You are assuming a truther audience, where as Bazant and Greening are expecting a reasonable, rational audience.

Besides, as no papers have been published in any REAL JOURNAL, concerning Controlled Demolition, I am surprised they even give the theories credit enough to merit mention.

Beyond all that, it is unlikely that complaints from you, or one hundred truthers, will get such a statement removed from the abstract.

TAM

[Major_Tom]

Consider the following statement:

"However, it has not been checked whether the recent allegations of controlled-demolition have any scientific merit. This present analysis proves that they do not."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Consider the following statement:

"However, it has not been checked whether the recent allegations of controlled-demolition have any scientific merit. This present analysis proves that they do not."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

Why do the theories of controlled demolition have Scientific merit if they do not match the available empirical evidence?

Thermite does not survive the fires and impacts, explosives degrade in fires I have personally tested them they do not work, I even tested Ammonium perchlorate.

Heat weakening has the most merit but there should be considerable amount of evidence from that.

There is no evidence of Monroe effect on any beams or shock waves from explosives.

I mean Scientific theories should have some science behind them, oh yes I do know that there are ways simple ways it could have been done, but that is just me jumping to assumptions without evidence.

Controlled demolition in every theory that I have seen is falsified by the problems in the theories.

Most of which were actually proposed by the truth movement and Controlled demolition theorist themselves.

Even when one of the theorist in controlled demolitions gives evidence it turns out to be just some random reactions or contaminants I mean they do not even know what to look for.

At least I know what would and what would not be evidence of Thermite, It would be a solid sphere of iron with aluminum, and other trace compounds with mineral formations not present below a certain temperature.

IT would not be Fe 3O4 that can form at much lower temperatures do to lewis acids.

I mean did anyone see the northern lights over New York city, or a laser beam?
How many people were fried by microwaves that day?
Give me something anything at all for which there is evidence, and which is reasonable, Please?

You could demolish the buildings with a hammer, damage enough insulation, and the crash a plane into it, water will work as well, I can tell you a thousand ways however there is no proof no scientific empirical data, or verifiable evidence that any were used.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Consider the following statement:

"However, it has not been checked whether the recent allegations of controlled-demolition have any scientific merit. This present analysis proves that they do not."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

If the calculations in the paper are correct to a reasonable degree of certainty, then the paper does disprove the conspiracist claim that explosive demolitions caused the observed collapse effects.

Here's a video I made for laymen like you and me, Tom. It's about how obviously wrong the leading conspiracist's claims are.

Do either the paper in question or the video get anything wrong? If so, what? Do the conspiracists get anything right? If so, what evidence supports their claims?

You'd best be careful when you throw around the words "explicit lie" here. That's what your people do constantly, not us.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Consider the following statement:

"However, it has not been checked whether the recent allegations of controlled-demolition have any scientific merit. This present analysis proves that they do not."

This is a false and misleading statement.

It is probably intentionally misleading.


The paper in question addresses an overly simplistic "physics problem".


To the degree that the mathematical argument has merit, it certainly doesn't address the question of whether the "allegations of controlled demolition have any sceintific merit".


The claim that it does is not true if unintentional, and an explicit lie if intentional.

Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong. Can you hear me Major Tom?

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Max:

The author is not responsible to research every single damn CT on how the explosives may have been used, where they were put, who put them there, what type they were etc...

You are assuming a truther audience, where as Bazant and Greening are expecting a reasonable, rational audience.

Besides, as no papers have been published in any REAL JOURNAL, concerning Controlled Demolition, I am surprised they even give the theories credit enough to merit mention.

Beyond all that, it is unlikely that complaints from you, or one hundred truthers, will get such a statement removed from the abstract.

TAM

TAM, you are either missing or avoiding my point.

My point is simple:

Bazant's model does not eliminate controlled-demolition by heat-weakening - the most valid CD model going at the moment.

Yet that is exactly what is strongly implied, from THE world's expert on column failure.

Why? Like Blanchard and Gravy, did Bazant not differentiate controlled-demolition into two main modes: cutting and heat-weakening, and account for both?


Has Bazant ever publicly explicitly stated that he studied controlled-demolition by heat-weakening, and PROVED that it has no scientific merit?

Did Bazant ever even consider demolition by heat-weakening at all? (Good God, please say yes!)

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Why do the theories of controlled demolition have Scientific merit if they do not match the available empirical evidence?

CC, the evidence gathered by NIST for WTC2 is NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

That report describes many anomalous phenomena that occurred spatially and temporally near collapse initiation.

My heat-weakening model fits the "available empirical evidence" - as you put it - far better than NIST's or Bazant's.

So, based on your assertion, why does MAX-MIHOP not have scientific merit?

[A W Smith]

Max the reason they don't respond to you is because if there was thermite at the splice plates or column connections near the access panels then you would see concentrated bending at those specific areas in the videos. Which is not evident. There is no empirical evidence of concentrated heat at those locations.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Max the reason they don't respond to you is because if there was thermite at the splice plates or column connections near the access panels then you would see concentrated bending at those specific areas in the videos. Which is not evident. There is no empirical evidence of concentrated heat at those locations.

Consider the correlated events:

• Coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs
• 7 major smoke releases that lasted 1 minute +/- a few seconds
• Flames at the tops of windows (i.e. at the bottom of spandrels)

Are these not consistent with thermite fuse igniting thermite planted at gussets seats, not to melt the seats, but to burn the visco-elastic dampers?

Are you aware this would cause the floors to sag?

Is not the 10 minute aluminum fire right at the bolt access hole opening to Column 301/81 not consistent with burning thermite at the opening? (Remember, you can see in video Column 301fail, initiating the collapse!)

I could go on.


Has anyone here ever even read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C?