• 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]

MicahJava

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
178
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
OMFG...

Only in Hollywood would such a plan be hatched.

How long do you believe the explosives would lay dormant?

And the OEM was PLANNED WITH EXPLOSIVES IN MIND?

And these explosives went unmolested for how long?

I suppose the beams were preweakened at the same time. No?

On the contrary, Hollywood could never come up with a plot as clever as this. This is the kind of thing a real power-crazed psychopathic terrorist would come up with. History is stranger than fiction. YOU asked others to speculate, by the way.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
91,421
Reaction score
19,637
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
On the contrary, Hollywood could never come up with a plot as clever as this. This is the kind of thing a real power-crazed psychopathic terrorist would come up with. History is stranger than fiction. YOU asked others to speculate, by the way.

No, I asked for an intelligent and fact driven theory. Yours was neither.
 

ozeco41

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
3,514
Reaction score
2,448
Location
Moss Vale, NSW, AU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What if part of Santa Custard is phlogiston? That way we are both correct. One could say the phlogiston then has been published, peer reviewed and never rebutted. :lol:

Feel free to build on my hypothesis - No Truther has ever proved it wrong.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
91,421
Reaction score
19,637
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The demolition devices in WTC 7 where most likely planted when Rudy Giuliani's OEM bunker was installed in the building. That would be why he insisted on it being there over objections from other high level people and why it was put on the 23rd floor which makes no sense otherwise. I think Rudy created the separate OEM by taking the emergency operations duty away from the police dept. so there would be a cover for planting the demolition devices.

Tony....

Please share your revelations here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...7-during-oem-renovations-1998-and-1999-a.html
 

ozeco41

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
3,514
Reaction score
2,448
Location
Moss Vale, NSW, AU
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It looks like Tony has left us - again.

A pity from one perspective. I fed him - spoon fed him - several suggestions as to where there could be weaknesses in Bazant's claims.

The "Crush Down Crush Up" applied to WTC Twins Towers collapses is one which Tony and the organisers of this website could exploit if they were clever enough.

And if they are also clever enough to not pull the foundation from under "Missing Jolt" (It is the same cluster of false premises under both) - should be possible with carefully vague wording. Truthers are good at vagueness and conflating ambiguity.

The "bigger question" is who misled who - B&V 2007 pre-dated "Missing Jolt" 2009 IIRC. So was Tony misled by Bazant in B&V when he wrote "Missing Jolt" - or as most of us have always thought - he (Tony) simple didn't understand B&Z 2002?

We may never know which. We will know he was wrong whatever the cause. And it looks like he has abandoned some pre-packaged opportunities to have fun through the website Northwestern University initiative. Could it be that he doesn't trust me? :doh

And poor li'l ole me - I'm feeling like the gift horse after the oral inspection. My helpful suggestions ignored. Using the same equus caballus metaphor - leading to water doesn't predispose drinking.


:cry:
 

shanners

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
405
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Hey Tony, good to see you again. Thanks for posting this. Take care.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
29,431
Reaction score
12,571
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hey Tony, good to see you again. Thanks for posting this. Take care.

Tony has decided to leave the building. He didn't like being asked detailed questions regarding CD.
 

Tony Szamboti

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
338
Location
Philadelphia, Pa metropolitan area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Tony has decided to leave the building. He didn't like being asked detailed questions regarding CD.

Your silly questions asking for a fully detailed CD explanation are hardly why I stopped posting on this thread. As I said, one gets tired of these type of hackneyed, mindless, and nonsensical comments by the likes of disingenuous people like yourself.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
29,431
Reaction score
12,571
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Your silly questions asking for a fully detailed CD explanation are hardly why I stopped posting on this thread. As I said, one gets tired of these type of hackneyed, mindless, and nonsensical comments by the likes of disingenuous people like yourself.


There we have it folks. Just read Tony's papers and the collapse of WTC7 is solved.:mrgreen:
No need for details on CD. Just know "they" did it. Doesn't matter how.

You seem to object to any detailed questions. Then came up with some explanation of C4, fire resistance fuses, and arson. Why wouldn't someone want details of such claims?

You never answered the question if you have ever went back and changed your first paper or just put out a new explanations?

Have fun at the next AE911T convention. :2wave:
 

stundie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
392
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There we have it folks. Just read Tony's papers and the collapse of WTC7 is solved.:mrgreen:
Well whatever Tonys paper says, is clearly better than the silly 1D models of Bazant, that you guys claim explains the collapses.....hahahahahaha!!
No need for details on CD. Just know "they" did it. Doesn't matter how.
No need for details on WTC 7. Just know "Fires" did it. Doesn't matter how.

You are something of irony master.
You seem to object to any detailed questions.
After scouting through this thread, I've not seen any come from you.
Then came up with some explanation of C4, fire resistance fuses, and arson. Why wouldn't someone want details of such claims?
You know something, you would have a strong point if Tony was in charge of the investigation, but guess what, he's not.

Is this one of your detailed questions you mentioned up above?

Detailed explanation of C4? It explodes.
Detailed explanation of fire resistant fuse? Do they have to be fire proofed if the explosive and fuse aren't within the vicinity of a fire? Rhetorical question of course! lol
Detailed explanation of arson? Shall we charge the planes with arson.

Really its quite sad to watch you try and attack the CD theory with what you think is logic, when it's nothing more than your objections because you can't mentally accept the possibility there were explosives.
You never answered the question if you have ever went back and changed your first paper or just put out a new explanations?

Have fun at the next AE911T convention. :2wave:
A bit like you guys changing your mind. It was a pancake collapse, no a pile driver collapse, a crush down collapse, no I mean a crush down/crush up collapse, no I mean truss failure collapse, no a tube in a tube collapse......15 years......and you guys still can't decide.....lol

And to be fair to Tony, I don't blame him for not wanting to participate, seeing as you don't have arguments for debate, you argue beliefs.....not evidence and certainly not facts!
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
29,431
Reaction score
12,571
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well whatever Tonys paper says, is clearly better than the silly 1D models of Bazant, that you guys claim explains the collapses.....hahahahahaha!!
No need for details on WTC 7. Just know "Fires" did it. Doesn't matter how.

You are something of irony master.
After scouting through this thread, I've not seen any come from you.
You know something, you would have a strong point if Tony was in charge of the investigation, but guess what, he's not.

Is this one of your detailed questions you mentioned up above?

Detailed explanation of C4? It explodes.
Detailed explanation of fire resistant fuse? Do they have to be fire proofed if the explosive and fuse aren't within the vicinity of a fire? Rhetorical question of course! lol

Detailed explanation of arson? Shall we charge the planes with arson.

Really its quite sad to watch you try and attack the CD theory with what you think is logic, when it's nothing more than your objections because you can't mentally accept the possibility there were explosives.
A bit like you guys changing your mind. It was a pancake collapse, no a pile driver collapse, a crush down collapse, no I mean a crush down/crush up collapse, no I mean truss failure collapse, no a tube in a tube collapse......15 years......and you guys still can't decide.....lol

And to be fair to Tony, I don't blame him for not wanting to participate, seeing as you don't have arguments for debate, you argue beliefs.....not evidence and certainly not facts!

and your are not debating belief that it could not have been fire? Seems you are..
No evidence, No facts, for CD.

The C4 was not my claim. nor about the fuses. Ask Tony. It is his claim
As well as a claim of arson on many floors. Ask him to back it up. Or do you accept it on belief that Tony is right?

Well I am shocked. You acknowledge C4 can "explode" Very good.
Now what evidence do you have that C4 was used to take down WTC7 as Tony claims?
 
Last edited:

stundie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
392
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
and your are not debating belief that it could not have been fire? Seems you are..
I accept it could possibly be fires or explosives.

You don't, you argue that it was fires and couldn't be anything else, and dam to hell with the evidence.
No evidence, No facts, for CD.
Much more evidence and facts than you have for your fire demolition theory.
The C4 was not my claim. nor about the fuses. Ask Tony. It is his claim
And if you ask what explosives and he's say C4, you expect him to show you some in the rubble, when you can't show any of this heat weakened steel.

Which out of the 2, heat weakened steel should be much easiers to find and evidence.........yet you require him to show you a needle in a haystack, when you can't even find the rake that you claims in there too.
As well as a claim of arson on many floors. Ask him to back it up. Or do you accept it on belief that Tony is right?
I have no idea about how the fires started. There doesn't seem to be any flaming debris from the collapse of the WTC 1 & 2, so god knows and didn't Hess and Jennings talk of fires before the collapses?

I could be wrong.
Well I am shocked. You acknowledge C4 can "explode" Very good.
Yes I do and it wouldn't detonate from the impact or fires, or be rendered useless if there was no impact or fires.
Now what evidence do you have that C4 was used to take down WTC7 as Tony claims?
I don't think Tony is claiming that there was C4, he is saying that it is possible they used it.

What does the chemical compound of the explosive prove? Why does it matter if it was C4 or dynamite? The argument is whether there was explosives, the type of explosive is irrelevant as long as it can cut steel, which is what it would need to do for it fall like it did.

Thats why it looks like a demolition.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
29,431
Reaction score
12,571
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I accept it could possibly be fires or explosives.

You don't, you argue that it was fires and couldn't be anything else, and dam to hell with the evidence.
Much more evidence and facts than you have for your fire demolition theory.
And if you ask what explosives and he's say C4, you expect him to show you some in the rubble, when you can't show any of this heat weakened steel.

Which out of the 2, heat weakened steel should be much easiers to find and evidence.........yet you require him to show you a needle in a haystack, when you can't even find the rake that you claims in there too.
I have no idea about how the fires started. There doesn't seem to be any flaming debris from the collapse of the WTC 1 & 2, so god knows and didn't Hess and Jennings talk of fires before the collapses?

I could be wrong.
Yes I do and it wouldn't detonate from the impact or fires, or be rendered useless if there was no impact or fires.
I don't think Tony is claiming that there was C4, he is saying that it is possible they used it.

What does the chemical compound of the explosive prove? Why does it matter if it was C4 or dynamite? The argument is whether there was explosives, the type of explosive is irrelevant as long as it can cut steel, which is what it would need to do for it fall like it did.

Thats why it looks like a demolition.

We will agree to disagree.
If the "evidence" for CD of wtc7 was more than their was for fire, you and others have done a poor job in presenting the evidence. Heck the websites supporting CD have done a poor job.

your word playing with explosion, explosives, etc is funny.

Your correct in that until someone provides the clear evidence and what type of explosive was used, I am not accepting CD.

Unlike you, I have stated that if anyone can prove that it was CD, I would admit I was mistaken. I doubt in my lifetime I will have to state that.

Guess it goes to credibility of sources. We differ in that area of what is a good source.
 

stundie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
392
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We will agree to disagree.
That's fine by me.
If the "evidence" for CD of wtc7 was more than their was for fire, you and others have done a poor job in presenting the evidence.
The only evidence that they can present is what is available, me and others are nor responsible for what evidence was collected was we?

And trust me when I say you and others supporter of the OCT do a much worse job in presenting the evidence, because usually, you don't have evidence, just opinions and assumptions.
Heck the websites supporting CD have done a poor job.
No worse than the websites including the NIST who support the fire induced collapse theory! lol
your word playing with explosion, explosives, etc is funny.
They are not my words.
Your correct in that until someone provides the clear evidence and what type of explosive was used, I am not accepting CD.
Well that's ridiculous but it's your choice.

That would be like watching the footage of man being shot and saying, I'm not accepting he's being shot because I don't know the calibre of ammo used.
Unlike you, I have stated that if anyone can prove that it was CD, I would admit I was mistaken.
You have an impossible standard of what constitutes as proof.

I doubt in my lifetime I will have to state that.
You will never admit it. You'll always find a cognitive way out.
Guess it goes to credibility of sources. We differ in that area of what is a good source.
What do you call a credible source for what you believe?? The NIST report?? :lamo
 

MicahJava

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
178
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Your silly questions asking for a fully detailed CD explanation are hardly why I stopped posting on this thread. As I said, one gets tired of these type of hackneyed, mindless, and nonsensical comments by the likes of disingenuous people like yourself.


Furthermore, if any of you can't get over the idea of so-called "silent explosives", then you may recall that there exist completely silent hydraulic devices used for verinage demolitions.
 

MicahJava

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
178
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
and your are not debating belief that it could not have been fire? Seems you are..
No evidence, No facts, for CD.

The C4 was not my claim. nor about the fuses. Ask Tony. It is his claim
As well as a claim of arson on many floors. Ask him to back it up. Or do you accept it on belief that Tony is right?

Well I am shocked. You acknowledge C4 can "explode" Very good.
Now what evidence do you have that C4 was used to take down WTC7 as Tony claims?

Back up your claim that hot North Tower steel could've set fires on ten separate floors. It's not enough to say, fifteen years later, "oh, it was a chaotic situation, tons of crap was flying around so anything could've happened". We have incredible hindsight on 9/11 now, so how could a few hot pieces of steel set fires of ten separate floors in a building caked with dust comprised of materials used for fireproofing purposes?
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
29,431
Reaction score
12,571
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Back up your claim that hot North Tower steel could've set fires on ten separate floors. It's not enough to say, fifteen years later, "oh, it was a chaotic situation, tons of crap was flying around so anything could've happened". We have incredible hindsight on 9/11 now, so how could a few hot pieces of steel set fires of ten separate floors in a building caked with dust comprised of materials used for fireproofing purposes?

Never made the claim of "hot North Tower steel could've set fires on ten separate floors. " I have stated it is possible the falling debris with the caused damage could have sparked fires. the actual ignition of the fires could have come from many sources.

Are you taking things from stundie's playbook of responses?

You see no other possible ignition sources other than the "hot steel"?

Do you have any evidence to back up Tony' statement that it was an arsonist?

Let's cut to the chase. If you don't accept a fire induced collapse. then by all means lay out what you accept with evidence.
 

MicahJava

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
178
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Never made the claim of "hot North Tower steel could've set fires on ten separate floors. " I have stated it is possible the falling debris with the caused damage could have sparked fires. the actual ignition of the fires could have come from many sources.

Are you taking things from stundie's playbook of responses?

You see no other possible ignition sources other than the "hot steel"?

Do you have any evidence to back up Tony' statement that it was an arsonist?

Let's cut to the chase. If you don't accept a fire induced collapse. then by all means lay out what you accept with evidence.

Okay, well how could some other method of fire ignition cause fires on ten separate floors? The NIST investigation found that floor-to-floor fire spread could not have happened. Why did the first photographic evidence of fires only show up over 1 1/2 hours after the North Tower collapsed?
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Since there was no misconduct by Bazant by any acceptable definition can we throw this topic on to the overflowing garbage heap of 9/11 CT fail and move on?
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
29,431
Reaction score
12,571
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay, well how could some other method of fire ignition cause fires on ten separate floors? The NIST investigation found that floor-to-floor fire spread could not have happened. Why did the first photographic evidence of fires only show up over 1 1/2 hours after the North Tower collapsed?

Is it not possible that the damage caused shorts in electrical equipment that started fires? (not the substation)
Is it not possible that the interior floors had damage allowed embers from above floors to migrate to lower levels.
Is it not possible some other firebrands from WTC1 entered the damage section of wtc7 and caused fires.

Your asking for specifics. Some objected to my post when I asked for specifics regarding how the CD was done and what was used.

Do you think all fires start big? Not sure what your implying by asking "Why did the first photographic evidence of fires only show up over 1 1/2 hours after the North Tower collapsed"
 

MicahJava

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
178
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Is it not possible that the damage caused shorts in electrical equipment that started fires? (not the substation)

Depends. You do have a theory on how rubble damage could have interfered with specific electrical equipment in the building?


Is it not possible that the interior floors had damage allowed embers from above floors to migrate to lower levels.

With the inside of the building caked in like 2 inches of WTC dust, embers aren't going to do much.


Is it not possible some other firebrands from WTC1 entered the damage section of wtc7 and caused fires.

The video evidence shows that almost all of the rubble from WTC 1 ejected about 1/3 to 1/2 way through it's collapse - so there are low chances that it was actually hot rubble from the fire-affected areas of the North Tower.

Your asking for specifics. Some objected to my post when I asked for specifics regarding how the CD was done and what was used.

I tried making new new FOIA requests for the NIST interview transcripts of Chief Peter Hayden and Chief Daniel Nigro. That, and closer examination of the eyewitness statements of the circumstances leading up to WTC 7's collapse may lead to the creation of a plausible evidence-based timeline for when arsonists could started fires and how conspirators could have mislead the firefighters into staying away from Building 7.

Do you think all fires start big? Not sure what your implying by asking "Why did the first photographic evidence of fires only show up over 1 1/2 hours after the North Tower collapsed"

Yeah, but still, a whole hour and 45 minutes? By the way, I guess this means that you acknowledge that it is highly misleading to say "WTC 7 burned for seven hours straight".
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
91,421
Reaction score
19,637
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Back up your claim that hot North Tower steel could've set fires on ten separate floors. It's not enough to say, fifteen years later, "oh, it was a chaotic situation, tons of crap was flying around so anything could've happened". We have incredible hindsight on 9/11 now, so how could a few hot pieces of steel set fires of ten separate floors in a building caked with dust comprised of materials used for fireproofing purposes?

Who said it was "hot North Tower steel"? Other than you.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
91,421
Reaction score
19,637
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Depends. You do have a theory on how rubble damage could have interfered with specific electrical equipment in the building?


With the inside of the building caked in like 2 inches of WTC dust, embers aren't going to do much.

The video evidence shows that almost all of the rubble from WTC 1 ejected about 1/3 to 1/2 way through it's collapse - so there are low chances that it was actually hot rubble from the fire-affected areas of the North Tower.

I tried making new new FOIA requests for the NIST interview transcripts of Chief Peter Hayden and Chief Daniel Nigro. That, and closer examination of the eyewitness statements of the circumstances leading up to WTC 7's collapse may lead to the creation of a plausible evidence-based timeline for when arsonists could started fires and how conspirators could have mislead the firefighters into staying away from Building 7.

Yeah, but still, a whole hour and 45 minutes? By the way, I guess this means that you acknowledge that it is highly misleading to say "WTC 7 burned for seven hours straight".

Magic Micah dust.... It will stop fires in WTC7 but didn't stop fire anywhere else in the WTC complex.....
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
29,431
Reaction score
12,571
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Depends. You do have a theory on how rubble damage could have interfered with specific electrical equipment in the building?




With the inside of the building caked in like 2 inches of WTC dust, embers aren't going to do much.




The video evidence shows that almost all of the rubble from WTC 1 ejected about 1/3 to 1/2 way through it's collapse - so there are low chances that it was actually hot rubble from the fire-affected areas of the North Tower.



I tried making new new FOIA requests for the NIST interview transcripts of Chief Peter Hayden and Chief Daniel Nigro. That, and closer examination of the eyewitness statements of the circumstances leading up to WTC 7's collapse may lead to the creation of a plausible evidence-based timeline for when arsonists could started fires and how conspirators could have mislead the firefighters into staying away from Building 7.



Yeah, but still, a whole hour and 45 minutes? By the way, I guess this means that you acknowledge that it is highly misleading to say "WTC 7 burned for seven hours straight".

Go smash some electrical equipment while plugged in and on and see if some of them spark. Start with your PC.:lamo

What evidence do you have that "the inside of the building caked in like 2 inches of WTC dust"

Do you believe all office fires are large from the start?

I am sorry you cannot figure out how an office building may catch on fire when damaged from falling debris.
You asked for some possible answers to how fires might start. I gave you some answers. Clearly you did not like the answers.

you got me. It had to be an arsonist as Tony claims. Ask him for specifics. :mrgreen:
 
Top Bottom