Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

Tony Szamboti · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
Your OPINION that people cannot make intelligent predictions without precedent is noted. And laughed at.

Your OPINION that a bulge would not show instability is too noted. And laughed at as well.

So, intelligent CD theory yet?

The alleged bulge on one wall on one side of a building as large as a football field would have been insignificant and certainly not have indicated an instability that would take down the entire structure. It is obvious that anyone who thinks it would has no capacity to think about how structures behave under load. Nobody who brings up this bulge ever even says what caused it and whether it was actually due to structure deformation or just the non-structural curtain wall. It sounds like nothing more than the curtain wall being bowed outward due to thermal expansion.

You seem to be either a little bit of a kooky person who has no clue or a shill who just keeps throwing crap at the wall about how everyone but a few conspiracy theorists thinks WTC 7 came down by fire. That is far from true. The NIST WTC 7 report has been completely discredited.

Here are a couple of recent papers by civil engineering professors showing the NIST WTC 7 report is non-explanatory

The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the ?simple analysis? approach | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics

Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7 | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
And a whole lot of them are known to be wrong. The con-ed substation, the fuel oil tank, the superficial damage from North Tower rubble, early reports of a possible gas leak from Building 7, experts lying to our faces on television that Building 7 did not fall at freefall...

Some may be wrong in the details...

But not in the overall concept.

SanderO · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Hit me with your best shot: What was there in the core structure to feed a fire?

EDIT: Oh wait, you just linked to the government report which said the combustible load in the few storage rooms was small, meaning that there was no way a fire could have a fighting chance of weakening anything.

The core area was 3/10 of an acre. There were elevator and mech shafts inside the core... express, freight and local. The area devoted to shafts depends on which floor you look at. At the top of each of the 3 stacks there were only the local and express shafts. We can ignore the lower floors up to the crash zone to determine how much available space there was for other uses... toilet rooms, mechanical closets and stairs... and of course office uses... conference rooms or storage.

The higher floors above 78... had only the 2 WOW express shafts in the center of tow 900-1000, 3 freight shafts and the following

above floor 101 there were 6 local shafts
from floor 94- 100 there were 12 local shafts
from floor 87-93 there were 18 local shafts
from 79-86 there were 24 local shafts

Each set of 6 elevators shafts has an elevator lobby

In the plane strike zone on floor 95 of 1wtc there were

6 local shafts
3 freight shafts
2 WOW shafts

at approximately 100 sf per shaft you would have 1100 SF of the 12,000 SF of the core. Of course the columns take up less than 25 SF... stairs another 200 SF, You have mech shafts, risers and bathrooms

The VAST majority of the core was for office use and storage which would contain combustible contents.

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Okay, apparently you won't give up faith that the WTC 7 foreknowledge is normal. I don't think that's wise, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You still have not explained why an intelligent prediction is not normal.

MicahJava said:
We're talking about the sounds of explosions that happened prior and after the East Penthouse caved in, not the ones that occurred through the afternoon.

And collapses are silent... Right?

MicahJava said:
I guess you won't truly answer my question on the actual loudness of the noises that occurred before the building fell. Okay.

What loudness? Decibels? Is it a loudness consistent with explosives?

MicahJava said:
I gave you good reasons to think that anybody who doesn't think a new investigation is warranted for the WTC destruction is either uninformed or delusional.

No, you gave a cockeyed OPINION.

MicahJava said:
The NFPA 921, and almost any other scientific literature on arson/explosion investigation, is enough expert consensus to warrant a new investigation.

No. Just no. They know the overall cause of the collapse.... Fire. The is no logical reason to investigate arson. The fires were started by the collapse of the towers. No need to look at explosives. There were none.

What they investigated was how fire led to the collapse.

What "expert consensus" are you talking about? AE911(everything but)TRUTH?

MicahJava said:
The question doesn't have to apply to 9/11 specifically.

We are talking about 9/11.

MicahJava said:
In fact, that's a better standard because sources like the NFPA 921 are objective and not blinded by denial or cognitive dissonance.

Why? There was no arson. There were no explosives.

The only "cognitive dissonance" on display is on the Truthers.

MicahJava said:
It seems you give human beings too much credit, like how you believe an engineer can just waltz in two hours after the North Tower collapsed and declare that Building 7 will also collapse in 5 hours.

He made an educated guess. Educated people can do that.

Why do you have such an inability to understand that?

MicahJava said:
By the way, you never explained that elevator car in the hallway of the WTC 7 lobby that at least two sources said existed. Do you think that was normal or do you think it wasn't true?

Don't know. Don't care.... Is there some relevance? Or just another rabbit hole you would like to delve into?

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Tony Szamboti said:
The alleged bulge on one wall on one side of a building as large as a football field would have been insignificant and certainly not have indicated an instability that would take down the entire structure. It is obvious that anyone who thinks it would has no capacity to think about how structures behave under load. Nobody who brings up this bulge ever even says what caused it and whether it was actually due to structure deformation or just the non-structural curtain wall. It sounds like nothing more than the curtain wall being bowed outward due to thermal expansion.

You seem to be either a little bit of a kooky person who has no clue or a shill who just keeps throwing crap at the wall about how everyone but a few conspiracy theorists thinks WTC 7 came down by fire. That is far from true. The NIST WTC 7 report has been completely discredited.

Here are a couple of recent papers by civil engineering professors showing the NIST WTC 7 report is non-explanatory

The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the ?simple analysis? approach | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics

Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7 | Korol | Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics

There was no "alleged bulge". Stop it.

There was a bulge.

The firefighters observed it and put a transit to it.

Unless of course you are calling the firefighters liars. Is that it?

And does it or does it not indicate instability? Yes? No?

And you will note the instability was noted early in the afternoon... Well, we all know the building condition got better as the fires burned... Right?

And the shill card? Really? That nonsense? That is just childish....

So, have you an intelligent CD theory yet?

mike2810 · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Tony:

Do you know who is behind the Bazantmisconduct web site you posted in the OP? If so, please tell us.

Search on the domain does not provide much information.

MicahJava · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
You still have not explained why an intelligent prediction is not normal.

If I haven't already explained it, check out the Graeme MacQueen Youtube link I provided a while back.

And collapses are silent... Right?

What's going to make more noise: a few floors partially collapsing, or all floors collapsing at the same time?

What loudness? Decibels? Is it a loudness consistent with explosives?

It was louder than a firecracker in the building, so, yes. Now that we have that out of the way, explain the huge difference is loudness between before and after the East Penthouse caved in.

No, you gave a cockeyed OPINION.

Which cited peer-reviewed material used for arson investigations.

No. Just no. They know the overall cause of the collapse.... Fire. The is no logical reason to investigate arson. The fires were started by the collapse of the towers. No need to look at explosives. There were none.

What they investigated was how fire led to the collapse.

Actually, the hypothesis that the fires were started by Twin Tower rubble has some issues, unless you can some up with a plausible way fires on ten separate floors could come from something electrical or gas related. Have you considered arson?

We are talking about 9/11.

The NFPA 921 isn't talking about 9/11, but it has passages that eerily describes 9/11 and says that those things are signs of foul play.

He made an educated guess. Educated people can do that.

Why do you have such an inability to understand that?

Have you thought that maybe it was a little more than a guess?

Don't know. Don't care.... Is there some relevance? Or just another rabbit hole you would like to delve into?

Technically, there's nothing conspiratorial about the elevator car in the hallway. I'm just looking for an explanation that doesn't involve some kind of explosive in the elevator shaft.

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
If I haven't already explained it, check out the Graeme MacQueen Youtube link I provided a while back.

YouTube is the argument of non-thinkers.

You still have not explained why an intelligent prediction is not normal.

MicahJava said:
What's going to make more noise: a few floors partially collapsing, or all floors collapsing at the same time?

So, no, collapses are not silent.

MicahJava said:
It was louder than a firecracker in the building, so, yes. Now that we have that out of the way, explain the huge difference is loudness between before and after the East Penthouse caved in.

So, no decibel levels...

MicahJava said:
Which cited peer-reviewed material used for arson investigations.

Which is a cockeyed interpretation of material used for arson investigations. CLUE: It wasn't arson. EVERYONE investigating knew that. And "peer-reviewed"? The NFPA 921? No. Just no.

You are now using terms without understanding their meaning.

MicahJava said:
Actually, the hypothesis that the fires were started by Twin Tower rubble has some issues, unless you can some up with a plausible way fires on ten separate floors could come from something electrical or gas related. Have you considered arson?

I do not consider that which is ignorant. It did not start on ten different floors but spread from floor to floor as fires are known to do. You do know fires can travel between floors...Right? No?

MicahJava said:
The NFPA 921 isn't talking about 9/11, but it has passages that eerily describes 9/11 and says that those things are signs of foul play.

There was no arson and there weren't explosives. How is it relevant?

MicahJava said:
Have you thought that maybe it was a little more than a guess?

I wasn't just a guess. It was an EDUCATED guess. Big difference. And he was right... Wasn't he?

MicahJava said:
Technically, there's nothing conspiratorial about the elevator car in the hallway. I'm just looking for an explanation that doesn't involve some kind of explosive in the elevator shaft.

So, going nowhere... Simply throwing **** against the wall......

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

mike2810 said:
Tony:

Do you know who is behind the Bazantmisconduct web site you posted in the OP? If so, please tell us.

Search on the domain does not provide much information.

Since Tony won't...

https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.as... wsvIi8tDlHn7235oBTGO6/GR/5t0EDkYBGWpeih2eIM=

Mark F · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
There was no "alleged bulge". Stop it.

There was a bulge.

The firefighters observed it and put a transit to it.

Remember, if a firefighter casually mentions they heard something they described as sounding like an explosion that is irrefutable proof of explosives.

However, if a firefighter describes a building that is creaking, moaning and moving with a 3-story bulge in one face we can ignore everything but the bulge (just pretend they never said anything) and then call the bulge "alleged". Also, according to our resident engineer, a 3-story bulge is apparently nothing to worry about. Perfectly normal. "Insignificant" I believe he said. Tony would no doubt not mind at all going to work if is office was in a building that was shifting, moving and had a 3-story tall bulge in one side.

mike2810 · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

T

Fledermaus said:
Since Tony won't...

https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.as... wsvIi8tDlHn7235oBTGO6/GR/5t0EDkYBGWpeih2eIM=

Thanks, I found that in my basic search. Was hoping for some insight of David Slesinger.

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

mike2810 said:
T

Thanks, I found that in my basic search. Was hoping for some insight of David Slesinger.

Probably this one:

David Slesinger
David Slesinger

Member for
9 years 25 weeks
Blog
View recent blog entries

General

About Me

Brought to 911 by old friend Doug Black. Originally convinced by the work of malcontent X. Spoke on Gandhian nonviolence at the Emergency Truth Convergence in DC in 7/05 and 911 Revealing the truth in Chicago on 6/3/06. Leafleted Andrews AFB in 8/02 urging an investigation of 911. Arrested for trespass for leafleting at a private movie theater in 8/06 when Stone's WTC was released, leafleted seeking whistleblowerrs at DOJ,FBI, and State. Urge all truthers to avoid calling anyone disinfo, just criticize what they do or say.
Website
http://[B]www.911courage.org[/B]
Location
Baltimore, Md

David Slesinger | 911Blogger.com

Note.... The site is dead. Like much of 9/11 "Truth".

psikeyhackr · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
MicahJava said:

No human being can simply predict when a skyscraper will collapse from fire.

Click to expand...

No human being can predict whether a building will collapse due to fire?

What is curious is how that got changed from "skyscraper" to "building".

It basically amounts to accusing someone of saying what they did not say. A skyscraper is a building but the vast majority of buildings are not skyscrapers. The physics would be somewhat different. It is even obvious from the videos the WTC7 was different from 1 and 2 even though 7 qualified as a skyscraper.

psik

Mark F · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

psikeyhackr said:
What is curious is how that got changed from "skyscraper" to "building".

It basically amounts to accusing someone of saying what they did not say. A skyscraper is a building but the vast majority of buildings are not skyscrapers. The physics would be somewhat different. It is even obvious from the videos the WTC7 was different from 1 and 2 even though 7 qualified as a skyscraper.

psik

1 and 2 differed from each other, let alone from 7. But an unstable building is an unstable building.

According to MicahJava firefighters are not qualified to determine if a building is structurally unstable or unsound once it reaches sufficient height to be called a skyscraper. By extension this means when fire officials ordered their men out of the North Tower because they could see the telltale signs of imminent collapse all around them (even in the lobby) they were just pulling it out of their hindquarters. Once the building reaches an arbitrary height, men whose job it is to work around unstable buildings can't tell if a building is unstable.

ozeco41 · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The person running the fruit and vegies shop can tell if fruit or vegies are going rotten.

Assertion : "How can the person in charge of the fruit shop know that the apples are going rotten" >> How can a person who is not a botanist know that the soft mouldy brown parch on the apple means it is rotten? Missing the point by changing it to an attack on the character/qualification of the person.

Counter: "because the person who works with fruit knows when fruit is rotten"

Assertion: "He didn't say fruit - he said apple"

Attempted derail into a semantic discussion: "What is curious is how that got changed from "apple" to "fruit".

It basically amounts to accusing someone of saying what they did not say."

All part of the risk of responding to debating tricks. Avoid legitimate discussion of the topic at any cost. Which is actually an admission that either they know the real on-topic claim is lost OR that their purpose is trolling.

Or both.

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

psikeyhackr said:
What is curious is how that got changed from "skyscraper" to "building".

It basically amounts to accusing someone of saying what they did not say. A skyscraper is a building but the vast majority of buildings are not skyscrapers. The physics would be somewhat different. It is even obvious from the videos the WTC7 was different from 1 and 2 even though 7 qualified as a skyscraper.

psik

And?

Your point?

You have one?

You do have one... Right?

Tony Szamboti · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
Since Tony won't...

https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.as... wsvIi8tDlHn7235oBTGO6/GR/5t0EDkYBGWpeih2eIM=

Tony was at work. From the number of posts you made today it looks like you weren't.

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Tony Szamboti said:
Tony was at work. From the number of posts you made it looks like you weren't.

Day off.... Working people get those.

First time ownership of the site was brought up:

04-17-16, 09:22 PM

mike2810 said:
It is noted that the web site linked in the OP does not reveal who is behind the site and the author(s).

Later, Yesterday, 06:52 AM

mike2810 said:
Who is behind the site you provided in the OP?

Just so we are clear, what new information and where did it come from? Your work, Scientific America, JAE, etc.?

You posted some time later after with your patented Truther insults....

Yesterday, 03:09 PM

Tony Szamboti said:
I tend to think of Fledermaus more along the lines of a peptic. If one were to actually take what he/she says seriously they would get an ulcer. There is no chance anyone could have predicted the confluence of events NIST needs for their story on WTC 7 to happen. It is a virtual impossibility to simultaneously believe the NIST report is accurate and that a natural collapse of WTC 7 could have been predicted hours before. It sounds like Fledermaus is trying to do it though, in true peptic style.

MicahJava · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
YouTube is the argument of non-thinkers.

You still have not explained why an intelligent prediction is not normal.

Youtube is just a platform for sharing video media. Dr. Graeme MacQueen does not make up sources, he just provides considerable perspectives. I'll link again: Foreknowledge of Building 7's Collapse : Dr. Graeme MacQueen - YouTube

So, no, collapses are not silent.

So, no decibel levels...

I'll take that as a "no, I cannot explain this very anomalous aspect of the collapse of WTC 7"

Which is a cockeyed interpretation of material used for arson investigations. CLUE: It wasn't arson. EVERYONE investigating knew that. And "peer-reviewed"? The NFPA 921? No. Just no.

You are now using terms without understanding their meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_921

I do not consider that which is ignorant. It did not start on ten different floors but spread from floor to floor as fires are known to do. You do know fires can travel between floors...Right? No?

That's one of the reasons why arson should be seriously considered. NIST specifically said that what you describe could not happen.

"There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread until perhaps just before the WTC 7 collapse. Thus, the fire-rated floors were successful as fire penetration barriers" http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 page 102 of PDF

So, it seems like fires on all ten floors had to be ignited independently. All while the inside of the building was caked in WTC dust, which was comprised of pulverized concrete and gypsum. I thought pouring sand over a fire made it stop being fire? Let alone the fact that the dust had a lot of fire-resistant material in it!

There's a lot of discussion in the NFPA 921 about floor-to-floor fire spread. This is because while it can obviously be considered a sign of arson, there are ways for it to happen naturally. NIST's findings say there was no floor-to-floor spread of fires.

I wasn't just a guess. It was an EDUCATED guess. Big difference. And he was right... Wasn't he?

I think you're better off arguing that it could possibly happen by sheer luck.

So, going nowhere... Simply throwing **** against the wall......

Lol, can't explain a magic elevator. How'd it get so far away from the shaft? A magic elevator, a magic engineer. IMO sounds like the kind of thing you'd see if a bomb went off.

MicahJava · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

ozeco41 said:
The person running the fruit and vegies shop can tell if fruit or vegies are going rotten.

Assertion : "How can the person in charge of the fruit shop know that the apples are going rotten" >> How can a person who is not a botanist know that the soft mouldy brown parch on the apple means it is rotten? Missing the point by changing it to an attack on the character/qualification of the person.

Counter: "because the person who works with fruit knows when fruit is rotten"

Assertion: "He didn't say fruit - he said apple"

Attempted derail into a semantic discussion: "What is curious is how that got changed from "apple" to "fruit".

It basically amounts to accusing someone of saying what they did not say."

All part of the risk of responding to debating tricks. Avoid legitimate discussion of the topic at any cost. Which is actually an admission that either they know the real on-topic claim is lost OR that their purpose is trolling.

Or both.

Comparing rotting fruit to a skyscraper on fire? Why not!

Fledermaus · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Youtube is just a platform for sharing video media. Dr. Graeme MacQueen does not make up sources, he just provides considerable perspectives. I'll link again: Foreknowledge of Building 7's Collapse : Dr. Graeme MacQueen - YouTube

Not playing the YouTube game. If you have a pint, make it.

MicahJava said:
I'll take that as a "no, I cannot explain this very anomalous aspect of the collapse of WTC 7"

What is anomalous or needs explanation? Explosions happen in fires. Explosions do not automatically = explosives (except among the CT crowd)

MicahJava said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_921

So what? No arson. No explosives.

Posting the link a hundred times doesn't change the fact that there was no arson nor explosives.

MicahJava said:
That's one of the reasons why arson should be seriously considered. NIST specifically said that what you describe could not happen.

"There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread until perhaps just before the WTC 7 collapse. Thus, the fire-rated floors were successful as fire penetration barriers" http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 page 102 of PDF

So, it seems like fires on all ten floors had to be ignited independently. All while the inside of the building was caked in WTC dust, which was comprised of pulverized concrete and gypsum. I thought pouring sand over a fire made it stop being fire? Let alone the fact that the dust had a lot of fire-resistant material in it!

Interesting.... Now you take the NIST at it's word while ignoring other findings....

MicahJava said:
I think you're better off arguing that it could possibly happen by sheer luck.

I think you are better off thinking rather than regurgitating....

So... Your new ploy? It is now a possible arson? Really?

ozeco41 · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

MicahJava said:
Comparing rotting fruit to a skyscraper on fire? Why not!

Psikey and I are old acquaintances. The analogy shouldn't be beyond his ability to process.

BTW the error of logic - failing to recognise that that members of a subset of a containing set are also members of the set - is not limited to truthers. Many debunkers are just as limited in reasoning skill as the truthers they oppose - they just have the advantage of the biased playing field - most of the accepted narratives happens to be true. Easy to argue for something that is true - whether you are a good thinker or not. Truthers are in a much harder position arguing for falsehoods - most of which by now - 15 years later - are deliberate lies. Very few - if any - "genuine believing truthers" still active.

There is a groups of engineer debunkers on ISF who insist - in analogy - that there is no need for the word "apples" because there is a word "fruit". And - in that case - also in analogy - insisting that only botanists can label types of fruit.

Some engineers should stick with their day jobs applying FEA to design of new statically safe structures. Tony not the only one who tends to make errors trying to address the engineering forensic aspects of the dynamic situation of WTC collapses.

Tony Szamboti · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

ozeco41 said:
Psikey and I are old acquaintances. The analogy shouldn't be beyond his ability to process.

BTW the error of logic - failing to recognise that that members of a subset of a containing set are also members of the set - is not limited to truthers. Many debunkers are just as limited in reasoning skill as the truthers they oppose - they just have the advantage of the biased playing field - most of the accepted narratives happens to be true. Easy to argue for something that is true - whether you are a good thinker or not. Truthers are in a much harder position arguing for falsehoods - most of which by now - 15 years later - are deliberate lies. Very few - if any - "genuine believing truthers" still active.

There is a groups of engineer debunkers on ISF who insist - in analogy - that there is no need for the word "apples" because there is a word "fruit". And - in that case - also in analogy - insisting that only botanists can label types of fruit.

Some engineers should stick with their day jobs applying FEA to design of new statically safe structures. Tony not the only one who tends to make errors trying to address the engineering forensic aspects of the dynamic situation of WTC collapses.

You are simply full of hubris. I have used FEA twice in the last couple of months to disprove what you are saying in a clear way that was understood by all, and you act like that never happened and continue to claim I am wrong somehow.

ozeco41 · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Tony Szamboti said:
You are simply full of hubris. I have used FEA twice in the last couple of months to disprove what you are saying in a clear way that was understood by all, and you act like that never happened and continue to claim I am wrong somehow.

Your neurosis was not the topic of that post you quoted Tony.

Your claims are false - specifically "used FEA twice" "to disprove" and "clear to all' are outright untruths and the rest is lie by implication which I wont waste energy parsing - If you want to make false claims for whatever reason have the guts to make them explicit. And save them for the next time when inevitably I will identify yet another error of yours and show precisely why it is an error.

Bottom line please do not base dishonest comments about a specific post on this forum on your misrepresentation of unreferenced and irrelevant posts on another forum.

@OtherMembers
You may be amused by a bit of history. The relevant irony is that back in 2008 I posted an errant bit of calculation for psikeyhackr which - on that occasion - allowed him to show that he understood the elementary physics of a false claim he was making. So he was right on the detail BUT wrong in the overall scenario. In fun psikey took to calling me "econ212" rather than "econ41" (My alternate user name to ozeco41 with the reason for 41 obvious.) The 212 being the false number used in the bit of physics. So if in any older posts you see psikey refer to ozeco/econ212 - that's the reason. I responded by progressive promoting myself - till I reached about 219 or 220.

Tony doesn't display the sense of humour that psikey and I often share. A couple of months back I identified a series of guesses Tony made about a complex bit of engineering. I got two right and he moved on - without acknowledging his errors. Score 2 to ozeco41. The third guess he got right but could NEVER explain why. So pressing him and another debunker who joined in the debate to explain and stop guessing I posted a wrong argument - laid out the full reasoning for their critique. Neither dared to show the error till I explained it myself.

So - unlike psikey - who understood the physics - Tony was guessing and got the answer right by luck. I presented a golden opportunity of laid out wrong lohic which he didn't address. Score in "prove ozeco/econ wrong" == psikey 1/2 - T Sz 0." And that is over 8 years. So come back in 2024 for the next episode.

My comment about psikey's post directed at MicahJava remains true. And my quirky sense of humour/fun is still intact.

MicahJava · Apr 19, 2016

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Fledermaus said:
Not playing the YouTube game. If you have a pint, make it.

You're not allowed to talk about pints and points and blunts on this forum, apparently.

What is anomalous or needs explanation? Explosions happen in fires. Explosions do not automatically = explosives (except among the CT crowd)

First it was random small parts of the building partially collapsing before the East Penthouse dropped, and now a bunch of transformers just decided to blow up right before.

So what? No arson. No explosives.

If you want. Don't blame it on the peer-reviewed NFPA 921.

Interesting.... Now you take the NIST at it's word while ignoring other findings....

NIST's investigations were compartmentalized. You can agree with some parts and criticize others.

I think you are better off thinking rather than regurgitating....

So... Your new ploy? It is now a possible arson? Really?

Yeah. The idea that a few hunks of rubble from the North Tower could ignite fires on ten separate floors is problematic if floor-to-floor fire spread, gas and electricity have been ruled out.