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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
It sounds like you missed the part that explained that Bazant never changed things based on new information.
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.
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.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
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?