Creative Speculation

You asserted that "Bažant's work itself has already been refuted twice … by James Gourley and Anders Bjorkman shows (Bazant's) perception does not reflect reality." Do you acknowledge that, for folks who do not understand the technical merits of those discussions, the issue of technical credibility is paramount?

You say my post was "unclear".

Do you have the slightest doubt that I consider Bazant to be one of the foremost structural engineers on the planet? If no doubt, then I was not "unclear".

Did I not make an airtight case (assuming you bothered to scan his bio & publications page) that Bazant is one of the most honored, most published engineers in history?

Did you look at your chosen "expert", Bjorkman's home page, thru the links to which I kindly supplied you?

Did you notice his background? Did you see anything related to structural engineering, failure analysis or high rise buildings? Did you notice ANY publications in the field of structural engineering?

Did you read the quotes there that I cited? Do you acknowledge that all of my citations are accurate & truly reflective of Bjorkman's stated opinions?

Is it evident to you that I consider Bjorkman to be both incompetent in mechanical engineering and a troubled soul?

Do you understand that I reject your assertion that Bjorkman has "refuted" Bazant's crush-down hypothesis?

Do you understand that I denigrate your assertion that Bjorkman qualifies as a "peer" of Bazant?

Was I clear that Bjorkman was greeted by AE911Truth with explicit celebration as "Petitioner of the Month"? Is it clear to you that Bjorkman has been stricken from their petition?

I concede that perhaps I was unclear about this last point. You need to search for "Bjorkman" on this page: http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php. You will not find his name. Since AE911Truth controls membership on this petition, it should be clear he was once a high visibility signatory (see "Petitioner of the Month", above) but has been removed from the list.

Do you understand that I consider your inference that Bjorkman deserves respect & stature comparable to Bazant's to be your massive epistemological failure?

Is "Bambi vs. Godzilla" unclear to you?

If you, or anyone else, are uncertain of my opinion on any of the above issues, then perhaps I was "unclear".

The tone of your response suggests, however, that you understood my meaning quite well.

One might even say "quite clearly."

(BTW, if you did not bother to look at the material that I provided, your, um, indolence does NOT constitute my lack of clarity.)

You say my post was "fragmented". You'll have to explain.

Finally, you called my post "non-objective".

Perhaps we have a differing definitions of the word "objective".

As an example, i would never have considered using Bjorkman's own assessment of the Bazant-Bjorkman letters (i.e., &quot Bazant's response was) the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history&quot to be "objective".

Perhaps you'll enlighten me as to your definition of the word.

Regards,

Tom

PS. I have my own question about "clarity".

You say "I won't even bother responding to such an arrogant post" …

… and then you proceed to respond.

One of us does appear to be a bit "unclear".