Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched
For those who have always been amazed at the expediency with which civil engineering professor Zdenek Bazant was able to explain the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers just two days after 911, there is now a website dedicated to exposing his proficiency and theories on what happened on 911.
The website is only a few pages long and brief and to the point. See
Bazant Misconduct
Believe it or not - Tony's concerns are correct on
some of the issues raised by this new site. I disagree with both T Szamboti AND Z Bazant on some points. I agree with both of them on some points and I agree with Tony on at least one point where both he and I disagree with Bazant.
And I've been attacked and insulted from both sides for daring to disagree with the "party lines" from both sides.
I lose many night's sleep worrying about my rejection. :roll:
That I disagree with the "Big Names" will not surprise those members who are familiar with my posting history. It may come as a surprise to others. It will not surprise Tony - he is well aware of where I agree with him and where I disagree.
So here for the record is a summary of my understanding.
The concerns go to alleged errors in Bazant's papers. Those papers fall into two groups:
1) Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) 2001/2 with several variants; AND
2) The later papers of which Bazant and Verdure 2007 (B&V) is the most relevant for this current post.
In brief B&Z - 2001/2:
(a) Identified that the collapse of the Twin Towers was too complicated to analyse at that time - 2001/2 - and proposed a "limit case analysis"
(b) The "limit case" analysis concept was and still is valid;
(c) The "limit case" was NOT intended to and did not describe the real collapse;
(d) It identified two stages:
.....(i) An initiating process which was totally arbitrary - he pretended to "Drop the Top Block" onto the lower tower. That was not what happened in real life 9/11 and is ONLY valid as a means of identifying the start of the progression stage. (Let's be specific. "Moving Downwards (not "dropping") of the Top Block involved an impact at velocity with the lower tower. That fact cannot be disputed. BUT the mechanism was absolutely arbitrary - it has been and usually still is taken literally by "both sides" and causes a lot of misunderstanding. Very few understand what really happened. See later comments - in Part 2)
.....(ii) The progression stage which was in concept a valid limit case assessment - it was worst case for collapse - best case for survival or arrest - and B&Z showed that there was more than enough energy for global progression. So far so good.
All hell of confusion broke out through misinterpretations of B&Z by both sides.
Legitimate arguments that I am aware of AGAINST B&Z include:
(p) One of Bazant's assumptions was "wrong way round" - cannot remember at this stage which one; AND
(q) A paper with T Szamboti as co-auther - G Szuladzinski and Johns the other two - has questioned the sums of B&Z and claims that Bazant was wrong - he got too much energy and with the correct energy the progression would have arrested. AFAIK that claim of the Sz, Sz and J paper has never been rebutted to for my money it throws doubt on B&Z.
The most prominent false argument AGAINST B&Z is T Szamboti (And G McQueen's) Missing Jolt which made the fatal error of taking the initiating "dropping" artifice of B&Z as it it literally happened. Utter nonsense and the scenario of the "Big Jolt" Tony was looking for simply never existed. Tony has been advised of his error many times and continues in denial refusing to withdraw his untruthful paper.
So a couple of possible errors by Bazant BUT of no consequence - even if the "limit case" argument is falsified the conclusion of "global collapse was inevitable" has since been explained - the conclusion in zero doubt, So the worst case scenario for the "debunker" argument is that Bazant and NIST both reached the correct conclusion but possibly for the wrong reasons.
For the truther side - Tony's Missing Jolt was nonsense from the outset. BUT Tony has had a big - usually unrecognised - success in forum debate. Many - maybe most - debunkers have fallen for his second false premise i.e. the "dropping" of the top columns resulting in column on column impact. I know from experience that the simple reality is very hard to sell to debunkers - many of then supporters of Tony's premise though they all vehemently deny it.
So that must count as a propaganda "win" for Tony - even tho' it is technical nonsense.
The arguable big error for Bazant came in the later papers. "Crush down - crush up" does NOT apply to WTC Twin towers collpases. The main outcome of B&V - and I you want to annoy many debunkers try pointing out that error.
I may explain further in a later post. So watch for part 2 :lol:
