Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

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

Do you have a logical reason to think North Tower rubble alone could ignite fires on ten separate floors? If there's a study that gives any good reasons to think it was gas or electricity-related, fine, but you seem to stick to the theory that the rubble itself did it. Also keep in mind that close examination of North Tower collapse videos shows that all rubble that hit the building, except possibly one piece, started ejecting more than 1/2 way through the collapse.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Do you have a logical reason to think North Tower rubble alone could ignite fires on ten separate floors? If there's a study that gives any good reasons to think it was gas or electricity-related, fine, but you seem to stick to the theory that the rubble itself did it. Also keep in mind that close examination of North Tower collapse videos shows that all rubble that hit the building, except possibly one piece, started ejecting more than 1/2 way through the collapse.

There is a reason to believe BURNING DEBRIS from the towers igniited fires.

You do understand there was more than rubble, right?

You are playing a version of the STRAWMAN game.

And you are playing poorly.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

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?

Now where did I get "intact" from?

Hmmmm

Oh, it was GERRYCAN.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

There is a reason to believe BURNING DEBRIS from the towers igniited fires.

You do understand there was more than rubble, right?

You are playing a version of the STRAWMAN game.

And you are playing poorly.

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

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Now where did I get "intact" from?

Hmmmm

Oh, it was GERRYCAN.

It was recognizable to at least one or two firemen as an elevator car.

So, how did it get out of it's shaft and it's doors?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

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

It wasn't just dust. Nor was it just rubble.

Stop the intentional ignorance.

A layer of dust did not protect these...



Nor did it protect this car.



So stop the stupid game you are playing.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

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?

Richard Rotanz?

This Richard Rotanz?

Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

Looks like there was substantial structural damage in that area.

OMG, telltale signs of structural instability as well.

And it looks like Richard Rotanz gave you the cause..... This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

Thank you for supporting the "building was structurally unstable long before the collapse" concept.

That is at 1230.....

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

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

Ignorance of burning materials ejected.....

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Richard Rotanz?

This Richard Rotanz?

Around 1230 Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire."

He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

If you watch the actual segment in the program, it is clear that most of what he describes there is actually the damage of the outside of the building. See it for yourself: WTC 7 - BBC The Third Tower - Conspiracy Files - YouTube

You do realize that I nor anybody denies that the building was on fire, do you? If there was creaking, worst case scenario is it was caused by floors slowly and progressively sagging with no chance of a sudden collapse, as is the case in all office fires and experiments where typical office fires are replicated.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

Looks like there was substantial structural damage in that area.

OMG, telltale signs of structural instability as well.

And it looks like Richard Rotanz gave you the cause..... This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

Thank you for supporting the "building was structurally unstable long before the collapse" concept.

That is at 1230.....

Richard Rotanz seems to have been on the show specifically to defend the official story. Obviously he agrees, but a witnesses interpretation of what they said they saw is different from what they actually did are two totally different things.

NIST did several interviews, not just Rotanz but several others (the transcripts of which they will not release), and still concluded that the rubble damage could have only been pretty much superficial. That is the official word on the matter and I don't see much reason to disagree.

So, you're saying the elevator car in the lobby got knocked far out of it's shaft and doors because of North Tower rubble. Do you have an intelligent theory for how that happened? I have a feeling I won't get one because it violates the laws of physics and doesn't make any sense at all considering where the elevators were situated.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

It wasn't just dust. Nor was it just rubble.

Stop the intentional ignorance.

A layer of dust did not protect these...

View attachment 67200422

Nor did it protect this car.

View attachment 67200423

So stop the stupid game you are playing.

What is the official theory for how the cars caught on fire? By the way, I heard car fires can often cause a chain-reaction of other nearby cars catching on fire.

Not sure if it's really relevant, but just throwing this out there: 9/11 survivor Ron DiFrancesco is living proof that very powerful fireball explosions happened at the ground level of at least one of the Twin Towers. Check out what he has to say about what he saw and the injuries he suffered: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/401mdz/ron_difrancesco_911_survivor/

 

[Mark F]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Not sure if it's really relevant, but just throwing this out there: 9/11 survivor Ron DiFrancesco is living proof that very powerful fireball explosions happened at the ground level of at least one of the Twin Towers. Check out what he has to say about what he saw and the injuries he suffered: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/401mdz/ron_difrancesco_911_survivor/

From the link:

"After his escape from the South Tower, as Ron DiFrancesco ran away, he was hit by a fireball, apparently caused by the building collapsing. He was probably the last person out alive."

Thanks for that bit of self-rebuttal.

Worth noting that Mr DiFrancesco's injuries were caused after he exited the building, by the already collapsing building. Nothing to do with collapse initiation.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

What is the official theory for how the cars caught on fire?

Reality says it was burning debris. Why didn't your precious dust protect them?

By the way, I heard car fires can often cause a chain-reaction of other nearby cars catching on fire.

By the way, I heard CTers make **** up when their pet theory gets smashed.

Not sure if it's really relevant, but just throwing this out there: 9/11 survivor Ron DiFrancesco is living proof that very powerful fireball explosions happened at the ground level of at least one of the Twin Towers. Check out what he has to say about what he saw and the injuries he suffered:

A fireball is not indicative of explosives... Stop the Hollywood explosives thing....

Another aborted rabbit hole...

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

From the link:



Thanks for that bit of self-rebuttal.

Worth noting that Mr DiFrancesco's injuries were caused after he exited the building, by the already collapsing building. Nothing to do with collapse initiation.

So your theory is that A. it happened, and B. it was caused by air pressure pushing the office fires down the elevator shaft, until it decided to explode out of the ground level?

It's a little bit more interesting than that, even. DiFrancesco said that he felt an object hit his head very hard, and his injuries as he described them confirm that.

Sounds a bit like those "shrapnel injuries" you types are always saying didn't exist with WTC survivors.

So not only was fire ejected from the ground level with extreme force, large objects were, too.

From the sound of how DiFrancesco and others describe it, this happened while the upper portion of the South Tower was just starting to lean over.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

If you watch the actual segment in the program, it is clear that most of what he describes there is actually the damage of the outside of the building. See it for yourself: WTC 7 - BBC The Third Tower - Conspiracy Files - YouTube

Why lie?
He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

Interior.

You do realize that I nor anybody denies that the building was on fire, do you? If there was creaking, worst case scenario is it was caused by floors slowly and progressively sagging with no chance of a sudden collapse, as is the case in all office fires and experiments where typical office fires are replicated.

What are the signs of structural instability? Have you forgotten already?

Three have been noted time and again...

Backdraft or explosions
Cracks or bulges in wall
Unusual noises coming from building or dwelling

His words..."At the time the building wasn't safe".

Richard Rotanz seems to have been on the show specifically to defend the official story. Obviously he agrees, but a witnesses interpretation of what they said they saw is different from what they actually did are two totally different things.

NIST did several interviews, not just Rotanz but several others (the transcripts of which they will not release), and still concluded that the rubble damage could have only been pretty much superficial. That is the official word on the matter and I don't see much reason to disagree.

So, you're saying the elevator car in the lobby got knocked far out of it's shaft and doors because of North Tower rubble. Do you have an intelligent theory for how that happened? I have a feeling I won't get one because it violates the laws of physics and doesn't make any sense at all considering where the elevators were situated.

He tells you what caused it and now you are going to ignore the words of your "Star Witness"?

Nice CT move.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

So your theory is that A. it happened, and B. it was caused by air pressure pushing the office fires down the elevator shaft, until it decided to explode out of the ground level?

It's a little bit more interesting than that, even. DiFrancesco said that he felt an object hit his head very hard, and his injuries as he described them confirm that.

Sounds a bit like those "shrapnel injuries" you types are always saying didn't exist with WTC survivors.

So not only was fire ejected from the ground level with extreme force, large objects were, too.

From the sound of how DiFrancesco and others describe it, this happened while the upper portion of the South Tower was just starting to lean over.

Well, there was a few million tons of burning building falling down. Sounds to me like a piece of falling debris hit him on the head. If a person is standing, and something is falling on top of them the head is going to be the most likely place to be hit. He was after all, well inside the collapse zone.

That's quite the fantasy you've got going though - keep going with that "it was explosives that went off for no reason AFTER the tower had already collapsed" line and see how much traction you get with it.

Seriously, do you think before you hit save?

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Reality says it was burning debris. Why didn't your precious dust protect them?

What evidence do you have that it was ignited by burning debris? Remember that it had to have been from the steel from the areas of the building affected by pockets of intense heat. Also, there's a difference between "burning" and "flaming". "Burning" could just mean "hot". Either way, I already provided you with evidence that none or very little of the debris from WTC 1 that impacted WTC 7 were from the fire-affected areas: video evidence shows that they only started ejecting about 1/3 to over 1/2 of it's collapse.

By the way, I heard CTers make **** up when their pet theory gets smashed.

I actually learned this while reading debunkings of Judy Wood's theory of the "toasted cars".

A fireball is not indicative of explosives... Stop the Hollywood explosives thing....

Another aborted rabbit hole...

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

LOL.

I think I have identified one of many problems with debunkers: they have not seem many videos of controlled demolitions.

Fledermaus, check out this segment of this video of the J.L. Hudsons Department Store demolition, and look at the left corner of the building facing the camera: J.L. Hudsons Department Store - GUINNESS WORLD RECORD!! - Controlled Demolition, Inc. - YouTube

There's a fireball.

Fireball, down the elevator shafts. Fuel. As attested to by others.

Just no. I thought we all agreed that the fuel burned off within minutes after the plane crashes and the fires were then fed by office furnishings? There were no fireball explosions, that I know of, reported from the South Tower except for Ron DiFrancesco. That was the North Tower, which took a full-on hit by the plane. Only the corner of the core of the South Tower was damaged by the plane.

You are left with office fires. So, your theory is that office fires were compressed downwards hundreds of feet until it only then decided to explode out of the ground level? None of the video evidence shows fireballs coming out of the other windows, so for some reason the base of the Tower was the target for this. DiFrancesco also describes a forcibly-ejected piece of debris hitting him in the head and causing his injuries, so it wasn't just fire. He was also physically lifted off of his feet.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Why lie?
He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us.

"There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."

Interior.

Is Rotanz saying that, or is that insufferable posh British narrator saying that?

I already gave you a contradicting citation better than just Rotanz: Several witnesses interviewed, and other evidence gathered by NIST to determine the true extent of the south face damage. If they could justify a way to comedically over-exaggerate the damage, I'm sure they would, but they didn't.

I would make a FOIA request to NIST for their interview of Rotanz, but I know it would just be denied like by request for the interview of Barry Jennings and Michael Hess.

What are the signs of structural instability? Have you forgotten already?

Three have been noted time and again...

Backdraft or explosions
Cracks or bulges in wall
Unusual noises coming from building or dwelling

Your source for that comes from an article talking about wooden buildings.

His words..."At the time the building wasn't safe".

He have already discussed this. You believe in superhuman foresight and I don't. Rotanz is just adding context to what he's talking about, already accepting the official story that the building really was structurally unsafe.

He tells you what caused it and now you are going to ignore the words of your "Star Witness"?

Nice CT move.

If Richard Rotanz was here in this thread, I can bet that his reasons for thinking the elevator car was forcibly ejected out of it's shaft and doors from WTC 1 rubble would be just as dubious as the reasons you're giving me. Not hating on the guy, he's a hero, but still.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Well, there was a few million tons of burning building falling down. Sounds to me like a piece of falling debris hit him on the head. If a person is standing, and something is falling on top of them the head is going to be the most likely place to be hit. He was after all, well inside the collapse zone.

If you bothered to read my entire thread and listen closely, It is obvious that DiFrancesco experienced the explosion while the upper portion of WTC 2 was beginning to lean over. It took several seconds after that for rubble to fall to the ground.

"Mr. DiFrancesco was bowled over by the explosion as he reached some stairs. Something slammed into the back of his head. The last thing he remembers is the sound of his own voice: "Help me, help me!""" -Last One Out Alive by Andrew Duffy

Sounds to me like a little something something shot out of the ground floor.

That's quite the fantasy you've got going though - keep going with that "it was explosives that went off for no reason AFTER the tower had already collapsed" line and see how much traction you get with it.

Seriously, do you think before you hit save?

What? WHAT? This was when WTC 2 was just beginning to collapse.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Ignorance of burning materials ejected.....

If I'm ignorant, educate me on exactly how North Tower rubble could ignite fires on ten separate floors in WTC 7.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

If I'm ignorant, educate me on exactly how North Tower rubble could ignite fires on ten separate floors in WTC 7.

One thing is quit with the "rubble" ignorance.

It wasn't just rubble. And you know that. It was rubble, and steel, and aluminum, and copious amounts of flaming debris...

At this point your ignorance goes beyond simple ignorance and has passed on to intentional ignorance.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

One thing is quit with the "rubble" ignorance.

It wasn't just rubble. And you know that. It was rubble, and steel, and aluminum, and copious amounts of flaming debris...

At this point your ignorance goes beyond simple ignorance and has passed on to intentional ignorance.

I think that's what rubble is.

Your second ignorant assumption is that the there was "flaming debris" after passing through that dust cloud. I repeat: there's a difference between "burning" and "flaming".

EDIT: I can just imagine you frantically searching for a dictionary definition of "rubble" that doesn't include "steel, and aluminum, and copious amounts of flaming debris"

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Is Rotanz saying that, or is that insufferable posh British narrator saying that?

He then enters WTC7... Very clear... Enters. Not outside. Inside.

I already gave you a contradicting citation better than just Rotanz: Several witnesses interviewed, and other evidence gathered by NIST to determine the true extent of the south face damage. If they could justify a way to comedically over-exaggerate the damage, I'm sure they would, but they didn't.

Now you reject what was stated...

What was "comedically over-exaggerated"?

Oh, wait... You are just trying to hand-wave the observations of an expert.

I would make a FOIA request to NIST for their interview of Rotanz, but I know it would just be denied like by request for the interview of Barry Jennings and Michael Hess.

You don't need to FOIA... His words are right there...

Please stop. His words that YOU QUOTED are clear as day.

Your source for that comes from an article talking about wooden buildings.

Irrelevant. If you note the other sources they note much the same things....

He have already discussed this. You believe in superhuman foresight and I don't. Rotanz is just adding context to what he's talking about, already accepting the official story that the building really was structurally unsafe.

Ignorant wording = Superhuman

No superhuman anything was required.

AND he entered the building at 1230 to make an assessment....m You really are making no sense at this point

Hyperbole is a sign you lost the argument.

If Richard Rotanz was here in this thread, I can bet that his reasons for thinking the elevator car was forcibly ejected out of it's shaft and doors from WTC 1 rubble would be just as dubious as the reasons you're giving me. Not hating on the guy, he's a hero, but still.

Not one said you were hating... Just blatantly ignoring what he clearly stated.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

If I'm ignorant, educate me on exactly how North Tower rubble could ignite fires on ten separate floors in WTC 7.

You really can't figure out how damage to a building might cause fires?

Ever see on the news of building fires damaged only by high wind and debris? Pretty easy to figure out possible ignition sources , especially in buildings that still how power.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

He then enters WTC7... Very clear... Enters. Not outside. Inside.

So, the narrator. Ok.

Now you reject what was stated...

What was "comedically over-exaggerated"?

Oh, believe me, I would love to hear what NIST has to say about the elevator car in the lobby. I'm sure it would be hilarious.

Oh, wait... You are just trying to hand-wave the observations of an expert.

Have you actually read the parts in the NIST report that says that the south face damage wasn't that severe?

You don't need to FOIA... His words are right there...

Please stop. His words that YOU QUOTED are clear as day.

One pair of interviews was done in 2004, and one pair was done in 2007/2008.

Given that Barry Jennings is dead, reading more about how he described his experience on 9/11 would be interesting. So would Michael Hess, who appeared to have changed his story after Barry died and the BBC was doing their hitpiece.

Irrelevant. If you note the other sources they note much the same things....

There was already a discussion of the bulge. Tony gave rational reasons why it didn't indicate structural uncertainty, Mark F made his over-exaggerated thoughts on the bulge, and then Tony was criticized for not playing along with the worst-case-scenario because there was no evidence for the bulge besides a few witnesses.

Ignorant wording = Superhuman

No superhuman anything was required.

If you refuse to think there's something odd about someone claiming that a building will collapse at "5 or 6 PM" and it collapses at 5:22 PM, then I have nothing more to say to you about the issue.

AND he entered the building at 1230 to make an assessment....m You really are making no sense at this point

Hyperbole is a sign you lost the argument.

The BBC link says it was at 12:30, but neither the link nor the TV program provides evidence that it was at 12:30. What's the difference? Rotanz is speaking in hindsight on a program designed to discredit conspiracy theories. The BBC show didn't go in to the foreknowledge issue very much. Time constraints or something else?

Not one said you were hating... Just blatantly ignoring what he clearly stated.

Fledermaus, look at a diagram of how the elevators were situated in WTC 7. Rubble hitting the south side of the building could not do that. Hundreds of cannonballs hitting the south side of the building could not do that.

 

[MicahJava]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

You really can't figure out how damage to a building might cause fires?

Ever see on the news of building fires damaged only by high wind and debris? Pretty easy to figure out possible ignition sources , especially in buildings that still how power.

The official material on the subject state that the rubble itself ignited the fires... on ten separate floors, even though "there was no evidence of floor-to-floor spread of fires". If you have any good reasons to think it could have been something electrical or gas related, tell me.

If there's a building that has fire on several floors, and there's no way the fires could have spread to different floors, then that is a possible sign of arson. The NFPA 921 has a lot of discussion of floor-by-floor fire spread for this reason.