Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

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.

You weren't right at all about the Nordenson error so don't take any partial credit. It is hard to take you seriously when you now say you were intentionally posting incorrect information to try and steer the discussion.

I also showed your column damage to factor of safety depiction was an unfair case and that the reduction in factor of safety of a high density column structure was proportional to the damage as I had maintained.

I did not mean to interfere with your having fun with psikey but you really shouldn't be throwing me into the mix there and stating I am wrong and then expect me to steer away.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

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

TypoNazi it is.

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.

Who said anything about transformer? Although they do make more sense than explosives. So, another rabbit hole you wish to venture into?

[/QUOTE]

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

Again... Since there was no logical reason to suspect arson nor logical reason to suspect explosives why is it relevant?

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

Another point that has no point.... NIST also discusses the genesis of the fires...

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.

Your OPINION is noted. Too bad for you others disagree.....

Oh, and "a few hunks of rubble"? It is rare that you out do yourself in making ignorant statements. But you did.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Who said anything about transformer? Although they do make more sense than explosives. So, another rabbit hole you wish to venture into?

Don't you think it's weird that you hear a low *boom* in the CBS footage (which is corroborated by MSNBC footage and at least one witness) is audible and the rest of the collapse isn't?

Again... Since there was no logical reason to suspect arson nor logical reason to suspect explosives why is it relevant?

The NFPA 921 lists many characteristics of deliberate destruction with arson or explosives. Why do you deny that?

Another point that has no point.... NIST also discusses the genesis of the fires...

Point me to where they discuss they issues I raised. They say that "burning debris" from the North Tower ignited the fires. Well, basic logic will tell you that those giant pieces of steel hitting the building as seen in the videos couldn't have been literally flaming after passing through the cloud of dust, as well as the fact that the inside of the building would have been caked in more dust. Watching closely at videos of WTC 7 being hit by North Tower rubble, it is clear that the rubble that went that far began ejecting about 1/3 to 1/2 into it's collapse, meaning that it is unlikely it came from the areas affected by intense heat. The earliest piece that can be seen possibly hitting Seven (white arrow pointing to it in the link below) seems to, if anything, caused the south-west corner damage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD_FO1otdrk

Oh, and "a few hunks of rubble"? It is rare that you out do yourself in making ignorant statements. But you did.

Yes, from examining videos taken from every angle, it would seem that only a handful of stray pieces of steel were launched far enough to hit Seven.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Don't you think it's weird that you hear a low *boom* in the CBS footage (which is corroborated by MSNBC footage and at least one witness) is audible and the rest of the collapse isn't?

The rest of the collapse isn't audible?

Wrong yet again.

The NFPA 921 lists many characteristics of deliberate destruction with arson or explosives. Why do you deny that?

Deny what? The content of the NFPA 921? No...

But the document is irrelevant as there was no arson nor explosives.

Why are you so wrapped up in a document that DOES NOT APPLY to the WTCs?

Point me to where they discuss they issues I raised. They say that "burning debris" from the North Tower ignited the fires.

Makes sense.... You have evidence of anything else happening?

Well, basic logic will tell you that those giant pieces of steel hitting the building as seen in the videos couldn't have been literally flaming after passing through the cloud of dust, as well as the fact that the inside of the building would have been caked in more dust.

It wasn't just "giant pieces of steel". My God. The entire WTC compound suffered from fires... Either ignorance or intentionally misrepresenting what happened. Which is it?

Get a clue.

Watching closely at videos of WTC 7 being hit by North Tower rubble, it is clear that the rubble that went that far began ejecting about 1/3 to 1/2 into it's collapse, meaning that it is unlikely it came from the areas affected by intense heat. The earliest piece that can be seen possibly hitting Seven (white arrow pointing to it in the link below) seems to, if anything, caused the south-west corner damage.

Wow... You do like to concentrate on single leaves while ignoring the trees and the forest.... Now you believe you can determine what hit WTC7 and from where the debris originated...

Very psychic of you.

Yes, from examining videos taken from every angle, it would seem that only a handful of stray pieces of steel were launched far enough to hit Seven.

Your (laughable) opinion is noted.

Now it is "only a handful of stray pieces" that hit WTC7.....

:lamo

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The Evidence of EXPLOSIVES in the WTC complex thread awaits...

As does OK... TRUTHERS. Let's say you DO get your "New Investigation"

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The rest of the collapse isn't audible?

Wrong yet again.

Listening closely to CBS-Net Dub5 09, I can not hear the collapse at all except for that clap of thunder before the East Penthouse.

Deny what? The content of the NFPA 921? No...

But the document is irrelevant as there was no arson nor explosives.

Why are you so wrapped up in a document that DOES NOT APPLY to the WTCs?

I don't believe in miracles.

Makes sense.... You have evidence of anything else happening?

It doesn't make sense, and fires on several floors like that is evidence of arson.

It wasn't just "giant pieces of steel". My God. The entire WTC compound suffered from fires... Either ignorance or intentionally misrepresenting what happened. Which is it?

Get a clue.

I'd suggest looking closely at videos that show WTC 7 being hit by rubble. It seems to have only been steel, and for good reason, because everything else from the Twin Towers was pulverized.

Wow... You do like to concentrate on single leaves while ignoring the trees and the forest.... Now you believe you can determine what hit WTC7 and from where the debris originated...

Very psychic of you.

How familiar are you with video evidence of the North Tower collapse? Catch up by checking out this page: http://www.911conspiracy.tv/1_WTC.html The person who runs this website is dedicated to cataloging and properly sourcing every available video of the WTC collapses. Some of the videos have a pretty clear view of the pieces that hit Seven.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Listening closely to CBS-Net Dub5 09, I can not hear the collapse at all except for that clap of thunder before the East Penthouse.

So you believe in quiet collapses.

I don't believe in miracles.

Ignorant statement. No miracles required. Simply an understanding of what happened.

It doesn't make sense, and fires on several floors like that is evidence of arson.

Strange how the firefighters disagree.... Fires on several floors IMPACTED BY THE TOWER COLLAPSE is evidence flaming debris hit WTC7.

I'd suggest looking closely at videos that show WTC 7 being hit by rubble. It seems to have only been steel, and for good reason, because everything else from the Twin Towers was pulverized.

So, no wood, paper, plastics, body parts, paneling, furniture? Oh, wait.... You are making another unsubstantiated claim.

You are doing that more and more.

I suggest you get your information from sites that will tell you the whole story. (CLUE: AE911(UN)TRUTH ain't it)

How familiar are you with video evidence of the North Tower collapse? Catch up by checking out this page: 911conspiracy.tv - WTC 1 - North Tower Collapse Videos The person who runs this website is dedicated to cataloging and properly sourcing every available video of the WTC collapses. Some of the videos have a pretty clear view of the pieces that hit Seven.

So... You appear convinced either arson or CD occurred...

Have you an intelligent theory on how it was carried off?

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

So you believe in quiet collapses.

So you believe in unnaturally loud collapses.

]Strange how the firefighters disagree.... Fires on several floors IMPACTED BY THE TOWER COLLAPSE is evidence flaming debris hit WTC7.

Firefighters disagree? I'm guessing you're just referring to a few quotes where firefighters deduced that the fires were from North Tower rubble? Yeah, no. WTC 5 and 6 were literally gutted by debris falling on the roof and I know of no authoritative word if those fires might have been something electrical or gas related. In the chaos of the day, it's understandable why a firefighter wouldn't have time to think about the differences between the fires in WTC 5/6 and WTC 7.

EDIT: Come to think of it, from watching videos from that day there were unsubstantiated rumors of a huge gas leak in WTC 7 going around. Trying to normalize the abnormal, I suppose.

So, no wood, paper, plastics, body parts, paneling, furniture? Oh, wait.... You are making another unsubstantiated claim.

You are doing that more and more.

I suggest you get your information from sites that will tell you the whole story. (CLUE: AE911(UN)TRUTH ain't it)

Make your own equivalent of WTC dust by mixing appropriate portions of concrete, gypsum, sheetrock, carpet, plastics, wood, etc.

Then, pour the mixture all over a piece of carpet. Then, lay a piece of hot steel on top. Then, pour more mixture on top. Will the carpet catch on fire?

So... You appear convinced either arson or CD occurred...

Have you an intelligent theory on how it was carried off?

Stage 1: North Tower collapses

Stage 2: People run in to WTC 7 and set fires on certain floors

Stage 3: Magic engineer misleads some members of the FDNY into thinking WTC 7 will inevitable collapse at 5 or 6 PM before they figure out a way to extinguish the fires

Stage 4: Let WTC 7 burn

Stage 5: Implode WTC 7

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

You weren't right at all about the Nordenson error.

I was initially wrong in my reasoning one single factor. You guessed right - never explained why and probably still cannot even tho I and one other have shown you the correct reasoning. I corrected the reasoning for that errant detail and you were still wrong in the bigger picture - the detail in dispute still not proven to have any effect. And the even bigger picture is your persistent false claim that a single or multiple academic papers which are wrong somehow make your false claims right. Elementary false dichotomy. 'Tony says "A" - academic/professional says "B" - "B" is wrong so Tony says "I am right it is A"' Childish nonsense beloved of truthers.

So please drop the lies by half truth and innuendo. If you have a claim to make on this forum them make it in one post. I'll destroy it in one response and we can close the thread.

I'll respond in a separate post to your second false claim.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I also showed your column damage to factor of safety depiction was an unfair case and that the reduction in factor of safety of a high density column structure was proportional to the damage as I had maintained.

Both those assertions are false as you well know Tony.

For benefit of other members - when a proportion of columns is removed from an array of columns such as the impact and fire zone of the Twin Towers:

A) The redistribution of loads is NOT uniform: AND
B) ALWAYS creates a worse situation than "uniform redistribution". **

Tony knows both those assertions to be true despite his false protests - it is medium level undergraduate engineering around Structures 204 level.

Any members who are interested in the physics - other than Tony who already knows the truth - just ask and I will OP a thread to explain. Using language and concepts that a High School student could understand. It is quite simple in principle - somewhat more complex in the WTC real event situation but you only need the principle to see why Tony is wrong.



** Disclaimer:
There is one plausible but highly improbable exception which is near enough impossible in real events.
I will also explain that one if there is genuine interest.

e



I did not mean to interfere with your having fun with psikey but you really shouldn't be throwing me into the mix there and stating I am wrong and then expect me to steer away.[/QUOTE]

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

<Snipped incredulity and nonsense>

Stage 1: North Tower collapses - Correct

Stage 2: People run in to WTC 7 and set fires on certain floors - Ignorant claim with zero facts to support it.

Stage 3: Magic engineer misleads some members of the FDNY into thinking WTC 7 will inevitable collapse at 5 or 6 PM before they figure out a way to extinguish the fires - Ignorant use of the word "magical". No misleading required as the firefighters themselves observed signs of instability.

Stage 4: Let WTC 7 burn - Correct - Due to many factors - Lack of water - Structural instability

Stage 5: Implode WTC 7 - Ignorant claim of implosion - Not supported by the evidence

There was no "implosion" of WTC7. Deal with that fact.

I ask for an intelligent theory on how it was carried off.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Back to the OP

I wonder if some of the people behind the website attended the University and failed Bazant's class.

To answer the website question. There is no reason to be concerned regarding Bazant's work on 9/11.

imo, if the authors of the site want to discuss Bazant's work for misconduct, then they should look at all papers regarding 9/11. They could start with DRG, Jones, Prager, Gage, etc..

 

[Mark F]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Back to the OP

I wonder if some of the people behind the website attended the University and failed Bazant's class.

To answer the website question. There is no reason to be concerned regarding Bazant's work on 9/11.

imo, if the authors of the site want to discuss Bazant's work for misconduct, then they should look at all papers regarding 9/11. They could start with DRG, Jones, Prager, Gage, etc..

There is nothing to discuss, period. The OP and the web site that inspired it are a desperate and feeble attempt to discredit what they see as authority based on a strawman.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

There is nothing to discuss, period. The OP and the web site that inspired it are a desperate and feeble attempt to discredit what they see as authority based on a strawman.

I agree.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Back to the OP

Well if we do go back to the OP we note that it goes to allegations of misconduct - within the context of the community of Northwestern University - which comunity defines misconduct thus:

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from commonly accepted practices in the relevant scientific community for proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences in opinion.

So there is no case to answer from the outset. There is no serious concern about misconduct with Bazant's work within that community. Within the worldwide community of academic publishing Bazant's works have received both support and criticism. Appropriately managed within and by the protocols for academic publishing.

BUT - the same OP as posted by Tony Szamboti shows astonishing hypocrisy given that his own paper "Missing Jolt" has been published in THIS community - the community of internet forum debates and discussed by Tony on numerous forums. The paper is false, Tony knows it is false and he has been firmly advised of the issues within the protocols for THIS community. Yet he still presents it as true. Misconduct in this community - not in making the original error but in dishonestly continuing to support the original error after it had been identified to him and fully explained.

I wonder if some of the people behind the website attended the University and failed Bazant's class.

Maybe - it shouldn't be too hard for the mischief makers to stir up a bit of interest. BUT given the childish nonsense of the level of propagandist writing they are more likely to arouse ridicule of their efforts rather than concern about Bazant.

To answer the website question. There is no reason to be concerned regarding Bazant's work on 9/11.

No reason to be seriously concerned - some of his later papers drifted into errors - e.g. "crush down crush up" does not apply to WTC 9/11 collapses. And that has fooled a few debunkers who do not think for themselves.

imo, if the authors of the site want to discuss Bazant's work for misconduct, then they should look at all papers regarding 9/11. They could start with DRG, Jones, Prager, Gage, SZAMBOTI etc..

FTFY - you missed one.

 

[gamolon]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I have. Eight stories of the core were removed in WTC 7 and that caused the 8 story symmetric free fall.

Hey Tony.

How about a little more detail than "eight stories of the core were removed in WTC7".

1. How did the penthouse collapse prior? Was that explosives?
2. What caused the observed bulge over three floors? Explosives?
3. What was the explosion that Hess and Jennings experienced around the 8th floor? Was that explosives? What purpose did that detonation serve in the grand scheme of things?
4. How were the core columns cut Tony? Were the core columns cut at each floor over 8 floors or just at the 1st and 8th floors? Were the core column detonations all at the same time or in quick succession? Are there soundbites of these explosions that match the timing previously mentioned?
5. How about an FEA showing those core columns being cut as you think they were and pulling the perimeter straight down?
6. What type of explosives were used Tony? Any guesses?

How about coming up with a detailed, plausible scenario for CD with the type of detail you demand of others?

 

[gerrycan]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Yeah, and what about the elevator car sitting in the middle of the WTC7 floor intact 30 feet from the elevator shaft observed by the first responders. I still cannot work that one out ?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Yeah, and what about the elevator car sitting in the middle of the WTC7 floor intact 30 feet from the elevator shaft observed by the first responders. I still cannot work that one out ?

Citation?

And if it was intact it probably wasn't explosives.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Citation?

And if it was intact it probably wasn't explosives.

There are two questions that come to mind when confronting any claim,...

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

There are two questions that come to mind when confronting any claim,...

Ah, yes....

I know them.

I wonder if Gerrycan remembers.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Hey Tony.

How about a little more detail than "eight stories of the core were removed in WTC7".

1. How did the penthouse collapse prior? Was that explosives?
2. What caused the observed bulge over three floors? Explosives?
3. What was the explosion that Hess and Jennings experienced around the 8th floor? Was that explosives? What purpose did that detonation serve in the grand scheme of things?
4. How were the core columns cut Tony? Were the core columns cut at each floor over 8 floors or just at the 1st and 8th floors? Were the core column detonations all at the same time or in quick succession? Are there soundbites of these explosions that match the timing previously mentioned?
5. How about an FEA showing those core columns being cut as you think they were and pulling the perimeter straight down?
6. What type of explosives were used Tony? Any guesses?

How about coming up with a detailed, plausible scenario for CD with the type of detail you demand of others?

I'll use an analogy here to show why you are asking for more information than is available, but that with what we do know collapse due to fire can be ruled out and controlled demolition can be determined as the cause.

Imagine there were was an experiment to go from point A to point B with three different routes of exactly the same 100 mile length. The object of the experiment was not to be at point B first, but to average 50 miles per hour between A and B with the idea being that the one closest to a 2 hour time was the winner. When it was all said and done the teams were all around the 2 hour mark.

What we can't know from the information available is
- exactly what form of transportation was taken
- which of the three routes were taken
- whether the teams moved fast and stopped or used an average speed the whole time

What we can know from the information available is
- that powered vehicles had to be used, as walking, running, or biking would not allow for a 50 mph average

All we can know from the information available from the video of the collapse of WTC 7 is that the symmetric free fall absolutely rules out fire as a cause and the only means of causing a symmetric free fall is controlled demolition.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I'll use an analogy here to show why you are asking for more information than is available, but that with what we do know collapse due to fire can be ruled out and controlled demolition can be determined as the cause.

Imagine there were was an experiment to go from point A to point B with three different routes of exactly the same 100 mile length. The object of the experiment was not to be at point B first, but to average 50 miles per hour between A and B with the idea being that the one closest to a 2 hour time was the winner. When it was all said and done the teams were all around the 2 hour mark.

What we can't know from the information available is
- exactly what form of transportation was taken
- which of the three routes were taken
- whether the teams moved fast and stopped or used an average speed the whole time

What we can know from the information available is
- that powered vehicles had to be used, as walking, running, or biking would not allow for a 50 mph average

All we can know from the information available from the video of the collapse of WTC 7 is that the symmetric free fall absolutely rules out fire as a cause and the only means of causing a symmetric free fall is controlled demolition.

Imagine Tony actually answering a question with what is generally known as a answer.

We can only imagine.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Stage 1: North Tower collapses - Correct

Stage 2: People run in to WTC 7 and set fires on certain floors - Ignorant claim with zero facts to support it.

Stage 3: Magic engineer misleads some members of the FDNY into thinking WTC 7 will inevitable collapse at 5 or 6 PM before they figure out a way to extinguish the fires - Ignorant use of the word "magical". No misleading required as the firefighters themselves observed signs of instability.

Stage 4: Let WTC 7 burn - Correct - Due to many factors - Lack of water - Structural instability

Stage 5: Implode WTC 7 - Ignorant claim of implosion - Not supported by the evidence

There was no "implosion" of WTC7. Deal with that fact.

I ask for an intelligent theory on how it was carried off.

As Yoda once said, "I'm wondering, why are you here?"

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Citation?

And if it was intact it probably wasn't explosives.

I gave you two citations a while back.

Richard Rotanz on BBC: The Conspiracy Files and an unnamed witness on the Aegis insurance court document.

There is nothing "intact" about an entire elevator car in a hallway. An elevator car is one piece of a system with several moving parts.

Now time to explain it.

How did it get so far out of it's shaft and out of it's doors?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

As Yoda once said, "I'm wondering, why are you here?"

TRANSLATION: Has no logical reason to suspect arson nor explosives.