• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111] (1 Viewer)

Tony Szamboti

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
339
Location
Philadelphia, Pa metropolitan area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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
 
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

Having read Bazant/Zhou, I an not now and never was "amazed" since he does not even attempt to explain the actual event. As an engineer you should know that so you are either being dishonest or you don't know that,... and I am not sure which is worse.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Having read Bazant/Zhou, I an not now and never was "amazed" since he does not even attempt to explain the actual event. As an engineer you should know that so you are either being dishonest or you don't know that,... and I am not sure which is worse.

It would be interesting to see just what you understood from your reading of Bazant and Zhou. You will have to forgive my lack of faith in your pronouncement that you feel qualified to claim they weren't actually trying to explain the collapses in that paper.

Given your apparent feeling that you have a heightened awareness, perhaps you can explain why Professor Bazant wrote three additional papers on the subject and referenced what was discussed in the first (Bazant and Zhou) as the cause in each one.

It seems to me that those like you, who desperately want to adhere to a natural collapse scenario, embraced Bazant until other researchers started showing his work was flawed. Only then was it spun as a limited case with the unsupported claim that they weren't actually trying to explain the collapses, to try and blunt the criticism. No, it can be seen right in the later papers that they felt what they said in Bazant and Zhou explained the collapses.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

It would be interesting to see just what you understood from your reading of Bazant and Zhou. You will have to forgive my lack of faith in your pronouncement that you feel qualified to claim they weren't actually trying to explain the collapses in that paper.

Given your apparent feeling that you have a heightened awareness, perhaps you can explain why Professor Bazant wrote three additional papers on the subject and referenced what was discussed in the first (Bazant and Zhou) as the cause in each one.

It seems to me that those like you, who desperately want to adhere to a natural collapse scenario, embraced Bazant until other researchers started showing his work was flawed. Only then was it spun as a limited case with the unsupported claim that they weren't actually trying to explain the collapses, to try and blunt the criticism. No, it can be seen right in the later papers that they felt what they said in Bazant and Zhou explained the collapses.

One has to ask.... "So what"?

So what if Bazant and Zhou ventured an educated guess as to what happened?

Structural damage and fire dooming the towers is STILL the only concept that makes any sense.....
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

It is noted that the web site linked in the OP does not reveal who is behind the site and the author(s).

So Bazant put out a paper two days after 9/11 as a possible explanation for the building failures. After 14+ years with more studies it appears some are claiming Bazant didn't get it 100% correct.

Well, has AE911T made changes from when they first placed info on a web site? How about you Tony? Does your first paper on 9/11 agree 100% in every detail with what you have produce lately?

The site from the OP in not much different from material that can be found from other sites that disagree with a fire induced collapse.

imo, there is no misconduct by Bazant.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

So what if Bazant and Zhou ventured an educated guess as to what happened?...

The so what of it is simply that tony and his box-boy bff are probably running low on website traffic/donations again, so they are cooking up yet another batch of irrelevant and meaningless BS in the hopes that they never have to work a real job again.

Using the 9/11 tragedy to profit off of the gullible and mentally ill is the only thing these snake oil salesmen have left. Coming up on 15 years now and all we've ever gotten out of them is fundraiser after fundraiser. Fundraisers that only serve to line their own pockets and pay for hotels/flights all over the world so they can give "talks" to other morons. Oh and I think they put up a billboard once a few years ago. :roll:

I am truly amazed that these scam artists haven't been jailed for fraud yet.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The so what of it is simply that tony and his box-boy bff are probably running low on website traffic/donations again, so they are cooking up yet another batch of irrelevant and meaningless BS in the hopes that they never have to work a real job again.

Using the 9/11 tragedy to profit off of the gullible and mentally ill is the only thing these snake oil salesmen have left. Coming up on 15 years now and all we've ever gotten out of them is fundraiser after fundraiser. Fundraisers that only serve to line their own pockets and pay for hotels/flights all over the world so they can give "talks" to other morons. Oh and I think they put up a billboard once a few years ago. :roll:

I am truly amazed that these scam artists haven't been jailed for fraud yet.

Everything the controlled demolition supporters have ever produced is available for free on the internet, even the discussion papers in JoEM. Yeah sounds like a bunch of scam artists, lol. Conspiratorial thinking much?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Everything the controlled demolition supporters have ever produced is available for free on the internet, even the discussion papers in JoEM. Yeah sounds like a bunch of scam artists, lol. Conspiratorial thinking much?

Is any of it factual and correct?

And Alex Jones and Gordon Duff? They are doing this for free, eh?

Richard Gage... Full time "fund raising" at AE911Truth...

Micah, what do YOU believe happened on 9/11?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Richard Gage... Full time "fund raising" at AE911Truth...

Didn't Tony once state that Richard Gage took a paycut compared to his original job? Also, I remember in one interview Gage said that what he does caused some marital problems. And there are videos of Richard demonstrating in Lower Manhattan on September 11th of one or two years. Did he get paid to join protests?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Didn't Tony once state that Richard Gage took a paycut compared to his original job? Also, I remember in one interview Gage said that what he does caused some marital problems. And there are videos of Richard demonstrating in Lower Manhattan on September 11th of one or two years. Did he get paid to join protests?

Do you have a point?

He is PROFITING from 9/11.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Do you have a point?

He is PROFITING from 9/11.

Someone profits when you pay to read a Bazant paper on the JoEM. The point is that there is no evidence that he is a charlatan. Your point? At least Richard isn't selling 9/11 teddy bears like the memorial museum once tried to do. Nb4 you even bring it up, "jet fuel coffee" isn't comparable in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Beyond Misinformation Book
AE911Truth’s guide to the WTC evidence in a durable paperback format.
$19.95

Beyond Misinformation Multimedia Edition
Beyond Misinformation with the powerful AE911Truth documentary “Experts Speak Out".
$24.95

Beyond Misinformation Booklet
Read and share AE911Truth’s 50-Page guide to the WTC evidence.
$11.99

Beyond Misinformation Booklet 100-Pack
Help AE911Truth blanket the architecture, engineering, and academic communities in your area with our guide to the WTC evidence.
$174.99

Beyond Misinformation with the powerful AE911Truth documentary “Experts Speak Out".
Price: $24.95

Coffee – Colombia Supremo
2-lb. bag – $23.50
AE911Truth receives a $4.00 donation from each purchase!

AE911Truth Sweatshirt
Year-round activism is now easier
with this AE911Truth sweatshirt!
$49.99
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

And yet Beyond Misinformation is available for free on the internet. Booklets with physical pages made of paper cost money. So do sweatshirts and T-shirts and coffee. It contributes to an organization rightfully calling for an investigation that should've been done years ago. Your point?
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Someone profits when you pay to read a Bazant paper on the JoEM. The point is that there is no evidence that he is a charlatan. Your point? At least Richard isn't selling 9/11 teddy bears like the memorial museum once tried to do. Nb4 you even bring it up, "jet fuel coffee" isn't comparable in the slightest.

Some people are making a living lying about 9/11.

And it isn't Bazant and Zhou.

Special Activist Pack
A $289 value designed for serious activists. Save 15% off our already discounted bulk pricing!
$254.99
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

And yet Beyond Misinformation is available for free on the internet. Booklets with physical pages made of paper cost money. So do sweatshirts and T-shirts and coffee. It contributes to an organization rightfully calling for an investigation that should've been done years ago. Your point?

There WERE investigations.... You simply cannot accept their findings.

Beyond Misinformation Book
AE911Truth’s guide to the WTC evidence in a durable paperback format.
$19.95
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

There WERE investigations.... You simply cannot accept their findings.

Beyond Misinformation Book
AE911Truth’s guide to the WTC evidence in a durable paperback format.
$19.95

Uuuum, most of the steel from the Twin Towers was pretty much gone by the time NOVA was pushing the pancake theory to the public. All of the steel from WTC 7 was gone by the time various sources were pushing the diesel fuel + coned substation + structural damage theory. You know what I mean by "investigation that should have been done years ago". The kind of investigation that should have been done when all of the characteristics of deliberate destruction, as listed by the NFPA 921, were duly noted and followed up on.

I'm sure you think such procedures are pointless for 9/11, which should have been the most over-investigated event of all time, but you pointing out over-priced stuff on the AE911TRUTH website doesn't make much of a point, because the purpose of the extra charge is basically a donation. The actual ideas and evidence pointed out by Richard Gage and other supporters of the controlled demolition hypothesis are available for free to anybody.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Uuuum, most of the steel from the Twin Towers was pretty much gone by the time NOVA was pushing the pancake theory to the public. All of the steel from WTC 7 was gone by the time various sources were pushing the diesel fuel + coned substation + structural damage theory. You know what I mean by "investigation that should have been done years ago". The kind of investigation that should have been done when all of the characteristics of deliberate destruction, as listed by the NFPA 921, were duly noted and followed up on.

I'm sure you think such procedures are pointless for 9/11, which should have been the most over-investigated event of all time, but you pointing out over-priced stuff on the AE911TRUTH website doesn't make much of a point, because the purpose of the extra charge is basically a donation. The actual ideas and evidence pointed out by Richard Gage and other supporters of the controlled demolition hypothesis are available for free to anybody.

Let the GISH begin!



There is a thread asking what you believe a new investigation would find.

Lets see how your GISH does there.

And the overpriced carp at AE911TRUTH underlines the FACT the folks there are profiting from 9/11.

And the "donations" go where?

For 13 years it wasn't to fund investigations. Finally they funded ONE guy and some volunteers.

It was to pay Gage and fund his vacation... Ooops, educational tours.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Let the GISH begin!



There is a thread asking what you believe a new investigation would find.

The first thing I would do in a new investigation would be interviewing several first responders asking 1. how early they were told WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, and 2. who told them (who was that anonymous engineer guy who told Peter Hayden that WTC 7 was going to collapse at "5 or 6 PM"?). Figuring out how this foreknowledge went up the grapevine may lead to the people who did the demolition. As for the remaining physical evidence, of course further studies on the WTC dust, as well as the remaining WTC steel. Dr. Steven Jones examined a chunk of iron-based material that somebody said they found stuck to a piece of Twin Tower steel from a 9/11 memorial. All of the ground zero artifacts sitting around in museums that have at one point been claimed to contain molten steel and/or concrete should be examined. NIST says that there is no remaining WTC 7 steel to be investigated, but this has been shown to be incorrect: Point WTC7-6:* The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis | Consensus 911

Lets see how your GISH does there.

And the overpriced carp at AE911TRUTH underlines the FACT the folks there are profiting from 9/11.

And the "donations" go where?

For 13 years it wasn't to fund investigations. Finally they funded ONE guy and some volunteers.

Wasn't most of the money going into traveling around and giving presentations? I agree that funding Dr. Hulsey's project is a breath of fresh air.

It was to pay Gage and fund his vacation... Ooops, educational tours.

I remember Tony also saying once that Richard Gage is often physically exhausted by the amount of traveling he does to give presentations and other AE911TRUTH-related stuff. The general public is so underinformed about the WTC destruction that just that is doing some good. All too often I'll see reddit comments that hilariously exaggerate how much WTC 7 was damaged by Twin Tower rubble and how the official story is proven by the mere fact that steel can be weakened by fire.
 
Last edited:
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

It is noted that the web site linked in the OP does not reveal who is behind the site and the author(s).

So Bazant put out a paper two days after 9/11 as a possible explanation for the building failures. After 14+ years with more studies it appears some are claiming Bazant didn't get it 100% correct.

Well, has AE911T made changes from when they first placed info on a web site? How about you Tony? Does your first paper on 9/11 agree 100% in every detail with what you have produce lately?

The site from the OP in not much different from material that can be found from other sites that disagree with a fire induced collapse.

imo, there is no misconduct by Bazant.

It sounds like you missed the part that explained that Bazant never changed things based on new information.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The first thing I would do in a new investigation would be interviewing several first responders asking 1. how early they were told WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, and 2. who told them (who was that anonymous engineer guy who told Peter Hayden that WTC 7 was going to collapse at "5 or 6 PM"). Figuring out how this foreknowledge went up the grapevine may lead to the people who did the demolition. As for the remaining physical evidence, of course further studies on the WTC dust, as well as the remaining WTC steel. Dr. Steven Jones examined a chunk of iron-based material that somebody said they found stuck to a piece of Twin Tower steel from a 9/11 memorial. All of the ground zero artifacts sitting around in museums that have at one point been claimed to contain molten steel and/or concrete should be examined. NIST says that there is no remaining WTC 7 steel to be investigated, but this has been shown to be incorrect: Point WTC7-6:* The Fraudulent NIST Claim That There Was No Steel Recovered from Building WTC7 for Analysis | Consensus 911



Wasn't most of the money going into traveling around and giving presentations? I agree that funding Dr. Hulsey's project is a breath of fresh air.



I remember Tony also saying once that Richard Gage is often physically exhausted by the amount of traveling he does to give presentations and other AE911TRUTH-related stuff. The general public is so underinformed about the WTC destruction that just that is doing some good. All too often I'll see reddit comments that hilariously exaggerate how much WTC 7 was damaged by Twin Tower rubble and how the official story is proven by the mere fact that steel can be weakened by fire.

Derp.... It was the firefighters that determined the building was in danger of collapse.

The was no grapevine to go up as there was no demolition.

None.

And the rest of your GISH GALLOP doesn't make much sense. Much rambling, no facts.

And, clue, Dr. Jones appears to be backsliding form his "thermite did it" claim.

And I really don't care what Tony says about Gage. I believe Tony not to be reliable.

And reddit?

Really?

Here is an idea. Come up with an intelligent counter theory. Be the first truther to do so.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Derp.... It was the firefighters that determined the building was in danger of collapse.

The was no grapevine to go up as there was no demolition.

None.

Just skimming over the witness accounts of first responders regarding the WTC 7 foreknowledge will show that there was indeed a "grapevine". When the fire chiefs describe the genesis of the conclusion that WTC 7 was going to collapse, it's always some vague "they" or "we". Only when Peter Hayden was being specific did it become clear: An "engineer" from Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management went around telling them, at around 1 PM or earlier, that the building was definitely going to collapse from the Twin Tower rubble damage, at around 5 or 6 PM. The first responders were dazed from the Twin Tower collapses and the deaths of their brothers, so their best bet was compying. The official story requires psychic powers and quotes by Peter Hayden and the first repsonders describing being told of the imminent collapse 4+ hours before it happened is evidence for that, and the fact that an unprecedented collapse "from structural failure" was so expected is one of the official story's weakest points, not one of the stronger points at all.

And the rest of your GISH GALLOP doesn't make much sense. Much rambling, no facts.

And, clue, Dr. Jones appears to be backsliding form his "thermite did it" claim.

So what? The point is his findings. He found two artifacts made of an iron-based material. There is enough evidence for exotic accelerants to warrant an investigation into them. A new investigation could do further analyses of other ground zero WTC artifacts.



And I really don't care what Tony says about Gage. I believe Tony not to be reliable.

Well, whether or not Gage is a charlatan is a dead issue. It's pointless because he and AE911TRUTH do not share the characteristics of scams and scammers.
 
Last edited:
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:
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

OK - lets decide it it is a worthwhile project for expenditure of energy to parse, analyse and debunk the material on this web site

I'll start with the "Mission Statement"

This website attempts to provide sufficient information to encourage a campus wide discussion at Northwestern University as to whether Professor Zdenek Bazant’s published work on the fall of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 should be a cause for university wide concern.

So the goal is campus wide discussion at Northwestern University.

That raises three obvious questions for members of this forum.

1) Why does Tony Szamboti bring it to our attention? It is clearly a matter intended for internal discussion within Northwestern AND Tony makes no claim as to why it should warrant attention either within or without the University.

2) How many of the members here are Students or Staff of Northwestern? Thought so! :doh

3) Why should there be "concern" of any level - never mind " university wide concern". The good professor has co-authored a few papers. The first one set the stage - set the standard for discussion. Did it at two days after the event. And has been a significant contributor/driver of debate. Surely those are central aims of University activities. He has succeeded,

But I anticipate the protest "he got it wrong" from those of limited understanding of the role of a university. He didn't get it wrong in Bazant & Zhou except a couple of details. And I challenge any honest rational person to show why a minor mistake or two falls outside the ideal scope of stimulating university level discussion. Gawd. If there was nothing to disagree with what value the paper to academic professional discourse?

And that is probably the biggest mistake T Szamboti et al make. The purpose of academic discussion is ---- discussion. Leading to learning.

I have learned a lot from analysing the errors on Prof Bazant's work. I am personally a more educated person. And much of that thanks to those very "errors". If he hadn't made errors what reason would I have to discuss or explain his work leading to my own learning???

Contrast with that proportion of debunkers who lack the courage in their own reasoning skills and dare not challenge Bazant's findings. And pity them - they will not learn from the experience.

So - no matter what the alleged errors - no matter how serious they are - Bazant has served a valuable supporter of the role of any University - the encouragement of debate.
 
Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

It would be interesting to see just what you understood from your reading of Bazant and Zhou. You will have to forgive my lack of faith in your pronouncement that you feel qualified to claim they weren't actually trying to explain the collapses in that paper.

Given your apparent feeling that you have a heightened awareness, perhaps you can explain why Professor Bazant wrote three additional papers on the subject and referenced what was discussed in the first (Bazant and Zhou) as the cause in each one.

It seems to me that those like you, who desperately want to adhere to a natural collapse scenario, embraced Bazant until other researchers started showing his work was flawed. Only then was it spun as a limited case with the unsupported claim that they weren't actually trying to explain the collapses, to try and blunt the criticism. No, it can be seen right in the later papers that they felt what they said in Bazant and Zhou explained the collapses.

How about instead of derailing the thread you describe how Bazant and Zhou "explained" the collapse of the Twin Towers so miraculously that it is suspect? That is after all the apparent thrust of your OP, so why Bazant & Zhou's Limit Case suspicious?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom