| Revision as of 06:16, 10 November 2007 editPeterhoneyman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users723 edits →seffen← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:43, 20 November 2007 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →Arbitration: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| check out my user talk page -- w00t!!! thank you wayne! ] 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | check out my user talk page -- w00t!!! thank you wayne! ] 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Arbitration == | |||
| I have added your name to involved parties in the arbitration case as shown .--] (]) 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:43, 20 November 2007
User_talk:Thomas_Basboll/Archive
seffen
it is really weird that i can not get an answer from seffen or from the cambridge press officer named in the press release. i have written five times. Peterhoneyman 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote to Seffen (albeit only once) as well. My question was about his take on Cherepanov, i.e., whether his calculations also refute that paper or is specifically aimed at controlled demolition (as the press release suggests). No answer. I suspect he's gotten too much hate mail from conspiracy theorists and that any question about the WTC gets sorted in the same pile.--Thomas Basboll 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- i suspect you are right -- i have seen some really vile stuff on the CT blogs. Peterhoneyman 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of useful information (and necessary discussion) is being burried by invective. It's not 50/50 but it is coming from both sides. I really don't blame engineers for staying away from this issue but, for precisely that reason, I wonder whether anyone really understands the mechanics of the WTC collapse (I mean its progression, not its initiation). I know I still don't really get it. And there really has been very little discussion of it in the literature. (I'm still waiting for the new edition of structural engineering textbook that can explain it to students, for example).--Thomas Basboll 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- i learned a lot from bažant's "... did and did not ..." paper. i found the discussions of crush-down and crush-up, comminution, expelled air, and the LDEO data especially interesting. the mechanics of progressive collapse has been a topic in structural dynamics textbooks for a couple of decades. google book search can point you to some textbooks if you're really interested. Peterhoneyman 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, book search has been my method so far. Also looking at table of contents and indexes. What I'm looking for is the WTC collapse as "textbook case" of progressive collapse (Bazant, after all, says it is the most striking example). I agree about the did and did not paper.--Thomas Basboll 06:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
check out my user talk page -- w00t!!! thank you wayne! Peterhoneyman 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration
I have added your name to involved parties in the MONGO 2 arbitration case as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)