A new, appalling truther site

Bitca

Student
B
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
34
The site I speak of is bazantmisconduct dot com and, as the title suggests, goes beyond the usual truther nonsense to actively attacking Bazant. Its mission statement is

This website attempts to provide sufficient information to encourage a campus wide discussion at Northwestern University as to whether Professor Zdenek Bazant’s published work on the fall of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 should be a cause for university wide concern.
Click to expand...

and includes such gems as

His first paper on this matter, written with one of his graduate students, was submitted to peer review TWO DAYS after 9/11. While this does not show that he began the paper before 9/11/01, that possibility should be considered.
Click to expand...


The "research" papers he lists that take issue with Professor Bazant's theory include are mostly from JONES, including Tony Szamboti's missing jolt paper and David Chandler's execrable 2010 paper. He also includes two Jonathan Cole gems.

I've crossed paths with David Slesinger, the creator of the website, on Quora. He is usually very polite (unlike the other truthers there) and pretends he wants to start a dialog with people, but of course he's a true believer who wants to proselytize. He claims to know at least basic physics but ducks anything concrete. I actually got him to acknowledge that things don't fall at a constant acceleration of 2/3 g, but then he quickly said he'd have to consult with Tim Eastman. (He knows some of the major players, such as Chandler, Eastman, and MacQueen.)

There are lots of truther sites, of course, but one dedicated to trashing a man is a new low for me. So I thought I'd bring it to your attention.
 
http://bazantmisconduct.com/


Bazant might of done his first draft on a napkin, Bazant like guys can fill blackboards with equations without notes...

What an idiotic web site - a legacy of woo


How can 9/11 truth nuts get nuttier? See bazantmisconduct.com or, Link Bazant to the inside job fantasy
 
Last edited:
Welcome Bitca!

Beachnut said it well. Idiotic. Pure woo. It's always irritating when someone well educated promotes nonsense, because there are always people who assume they must know what they are talking about.

No.
 
http://bazantmisconduct.com/

For those whose expertise lies outside the realm of hard science, we offer these links to two 10 minute videos by a practicing civil engineer about conservation of momentum. Newton’s Laws, including conservation of momentum, are usually taught in high school.
Click to expand...

Two videos by Cole. This is sad. Guess David Slesinger failed to take high school physics.
 
I just finished reading Galileo's middle finger by Alice dreger, who has defended many others in academia who have been harassed and had their careers tarnished. Maybe he should contact her. Incidentally she used to be at northwestern, he probably knows her.
 
Thanks, Beechnut. I'm not allowed to post links yet. Guess I better participate more instead of lurking.

Turns out good old Tony S announced the site at debate politics.

David's also been "truthing" since 2002, first on ae911truth, and now on 911truth. (The difference being there are no architects or engineers on the latter?)

And, oh my, I just stumbled on this earlier site, also by Slesinger: ChallengingChomsky, which includes this bit:

David plans to perform an act of nonviolent civil disobedience at a yet to be determined venue, and, if charged with trespass, plead guilty and serve time in jail in an effort to touch Prof. Chomsky heart.
Click to expand...

He is, or was, the "operations manager for the NineElevenTruthCoin". Anyone hear of that?

It's kind of pathetic that he's wasted 14 years of his life on this stuff. And that I spent a fair amount of time over the past 3 months or so trying to have a sane conversation with him. :(


URL's added by your friendly, neighborhood moderator.
Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Under "Research papers which take issue with Professor Bazant’s theory of the collapses", there's just one which is not a truther site.

I followed the link. I'd say it's interesting for structural engineers. It basically consists of experiments showing that the energy dissipation of a buckling column as it develops hinges may have been underestimated by Bazant. That's not even remotely similar to a "misconduct". I also note that the first listed co-author has collaborated with Szamboti in the "Missing Jolt" paper.

And of course, I can't help noticing there's a donation button.
 
Is it 84 % of Americans who now believe the Official 9/11 report is nonsense ?
Those who haven't followed the money look increasingly foolish .
How soon before the conspiracy deniers will be regarded in the same way as sane people regard Holocaust deniers ?
 
Malbec said:
Is it 84 % of Americans who now believe the Official 9/11 report is nonsense ?Those who haven't followed the money look increasingly foolish .
How soon before the conspiracy deniers will be regarded in the same way as sane people regard Holocaust deniers ?
Click to expand...
Where did you get this figure? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Malbec said:
Is it 84 % of Americans who now believe the Official 9/11 report is nonsense ?
Click to expand...
lol, so your make up fake numbers so you can follow the crowd who can't figure out 9/11 after 14 years? Stand up and be an individual...
Malbec said:
Those who haven't followed the money look increasingly foolish .
Click to expand...
How much did the knives cost?
Malbec said:
How soon before the conspiracy deniers will be regarded in the same way as sane people regard Holocaust deniers ?
Click to expand...
Good to see you don't deny the Holocaust; some 9/11 truth followers do. Guess getting the Holocaust right and 9/11 wrong puts you at 50 percent for reality.

But did you have something to add on the case of the dolt who started the Bazant attack web site - follow the money, the guy is asking for donations to attack Bazant. Keep up the failed 9/11 truth claims; it takes massive lack of knowledge to believe 9/11 truth claims. Seems most 9/11 truth followers are over qualified.


Love the irony...
Malbec said:
Those who haven't followed the money ... look increasingly foolish .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Malbec said:
Is it 84 % of Americans who now believe the Official 9/11 report is nonsense ?
Those who haven't followed the money look increasingly foolish .
How soon before the conspiracy deniers will be regarded in the same way as sane people regard Holocaust deniers ?
Click to expand...

Seeing the only people who you have have proven themselves, and even openly admitted
They were intellectually dishonest, who care?
 
The current AE911T led smear campaign against Bazant reminds me very much of their NIST Fraud smear compaign from two years ago and is likely to be even less effective.

Northwestern University actually spells out what constitutes misconduct quite clearly:

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.
Click to expand...

Simple. Disagreement does not = misconduct.
 
Malbec said:
Is it 84 % of Americans who now believe the Official 9/11 report is nonsense ?
Those who haven't followed the money look increasingly foolish .
How soon before the conspiracy deniers will be regarded in the same way as sane people regard Holocaust deniers ?
Click to expand...

Not even close to 30% and most of them live in their parent's basements eating Cheez Whiz and candy bars while fapping to their favorite online places that use their idiocies to sell them crap for survival planning. And trying to beat each others tales of the evul konspericey people..........http://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Midd...3329&sr=1-1&keywords=galileo's+middle+fingere this helps you!!!
 
Malbec said:
Is it 84 % of Americans who now believe the Official 9/11 report is nonsense ?
Those who haven't followed the money look increasingly foolish .
How soon before the conspiracy deniers will be regarded in the same way as sane people regard Holocaust deniers ?
Click to expand...

It's all over pal. Truthers are viewed with the same level of contempt as Holocaust and Moon landing deniers by practically everyone who doesn't get their news from Russia Today. And rightfully so.
 
pgimeno said:
I followed the link. I'd say it's interesting for structural engineers. It basically consists of experiments showing that the energy dissipation of a buckling column as it develops hinges may have been underestimated by Bazant.
Click to expand...
AFAIK it is one of only two potentially valid arguments against B&Z's finding that global collapse was inevitable. I've identified it many times for two main reasons:

1) For all those stuck in the past - either "side" - it - the Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper - remains a legitimate prima facie claim that Bazant (AKA Zhou) got the sums wrong - AFAIK no one has rebutted it. ; AND
2) It is irrelevant any way - we now (should) know that "global collapse was inevitable" independent of Bazant because we (should) understand the mechanism. And that the mechanism is easier to understand than Bazant thought it would be 9/12 - 9/13 and thru to formal publication of B&Z.

The issue shouldn't concern us because B&Z is irrelevant in the current state of discussion - EXCEPT for the meta level question "Would debate have progressed more effectively without B&Z?"

pgimeno said:
... (That's not even remotely similar to a "misconduct".
Click to expand...
Agreed. "They" simple have no concept of what "misconduct" means - esp. in an academic context. For strict "letter of the law" by Northwestern Mark F has given us the relevant words:
Mark F said:
...Northwestern University actually spells out what constitutes misconduct quite clearly:
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.
Click to expand...

Simple. Disagreement does not = misconduct.
Click to expand...

pgimeno said:
I also note that the first listed co-author has collaborated with Szamboti in the "Missing Jolt" paper..
Click to expand...
Half of which is arguably T Sz's biggest or only win.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
AFAIK it is one of only two potentially valid arguments against B&Z's finding that global collapse was inevitable. I've identified it many times for two main reasons:

1) For all those stuck in the past - either "side" - it - the Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper - remains a legitimate prima facie claim that Bazant (AKA Zhou) got the sums wrong - AFAIK no one has rebutted it. ; AND
2) It is irrelevant any way - we now (should) know that "global collapse was inevitable" independent of Bazant because we (should) understand the mechanism. And that the mechanism is easier to understand than Bazant thought it would be 9/12 - 9/13 and thru to formal publication of B&Z.

The issue shouldn't concern us because B&Z is irrelevant in the current state of discussion - EXCEPT for the meta level question "Would debate have progressed more effectively without B&Z?"

Agreed. "They" simple have no concept of what "misconduct" means - esp. in an academic context. For strict "letter of the law" by Northwestern Mark F has given us the relevant words:


Half of which is arguably T Sz's biggest or only win.
Click to expand...
And I am surprised at how many "engineers" still have no concept of what a "limiting case" really is.
 
trustbutverify said:
It's all over pal. Truthers are viewed with the same level of contempt as Holocaust and Moon landing deniers by practically everyone who doesn't get their news from Russia Today. And rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Actually, I hold 9/11 truthers in high regard, almost as high as I do Slime mold, and that's high for organisms that can organize without a brain or nervous system.
 
Bitca said:
The site I speak of is bazantmisconduct dot com and, as the title suggests, goes beyond the usual truther nonsense to actively attacking Bazant. Its mission statement is



and includes such gems as




The "research" papers he lists that take issue with Professor Bazant's theory include are mostly from JONES, including Tony Szamboti's missing jolt paper and David Chandler's execrable 2010 paper. He also includes two Jonathan Cole gems.

I've crossed paths with David Slesinger, the creator of the website, on Quora. He is usually very polite (unlike the other truthers there) and pretends he wants to start a dialog with people, but of course he's a true believer who wants to proselytize. He claims to know at least basic physics but ducks anything concrete. I actually got him to acknowledge that things don't fall at a constant acceleration of 2/3 g, but then he quickly said he'd have to consult with Tim Eastman. (He knows some of the major players, such as Chandler, Eastman, and MacQueen.)

There are lots of truther sites, of course, but one dedicated to trashing a man is a new low for me. So I thought I'd bring it to your attention.
Click to expand...

Seems like 9/11 was a known operation before it happened to pretty much everyone except the stupid truthers. :rolleyes:
 
RogueKitten said:
I just finished reading Galileo's middle finger by Alice dreger, who has defended many others in academia who have been harassed and had their careers tarnished. Maybe he should contact her. Incidentally she used to be at northwestern, he probably knows her.
Click to expand...

Contact her about what? This nonsense won't have any legs.
 
This website attempts to provide sufficient information to encourage a campus wide discussion at Northwestern University as to whether Professor Zdenek Bazant’s published work on the fall of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 should be a cause for university wide concern.
Click to expand...

We should have a discussion about whether we should be concerned?

lolz
 
DGM said:
Where did you get this figure? :confused:
Click to expand...

This comes from an old (like ten years old) poll that the Truthers like to flog. They claim that it shows 84% support for their nonsense, but that is really stretching things:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"
Click to expand...

They add up the "mostly telling the truth but hiding something" plus "mostly lying" plus "not sure" to get the 84%. Ask our resident Truthers if they believe the Bush Administration was mostly telling the truth about 9-11.

It would be hard to find a more classic example of the old gag that if you torture the statistics enough, they will tell you anything.
 
Last edited:
This is just plain despicable.
Morons ... performing the only task of which they're capable: making royal pains in the asses of themselves.

It's hilarious that this clown offers up Cole as a dissenting "expert". LoL.

Especially when Cole is on record as having said this:

Jonathan Cole said:
@12:41 Professor Bazant put out some technical papers… And indeed it's a beautiful paper. It’s filled with very nice equations. Frankly, some of the equations I don't understand. It is a very nice paper. I have no doubt Professor Bazant is a extremely intelligent man. Far more intelligent than I am.
Click to expand...

Finally, Cole says something that is correct.
Dr. Bazant IS “far more intelligent” than Cole.!

I guess designing sewer systems doesn't require a lot of advanced math...
 
Last edited:
Malbec said:
Is it 84 % of Americans who now believe the Official 9/11 report is nonsense ?

Those who haven't followed the money look increasingly foolish .
How soon before the conspiracy deniers will be regarded in the same way as sane people regard Holocaust deniers ?
Click to expand...

That's so cute!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

So which category will Kevin Barrett fall into?

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...st-history-denial-a-clear-and-present-danger/

Evidently the connection between 9/11 Ctists and Holocaust deniers seems to be stronger than that of Holocaust deniers and individuals that reject unfounded 9/11 CT fairy tales.
 
BStrong said:
That's so cute!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

So which category will Kevin Barrett fall into?

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.c...st-history-denial-a-clear-and-present-danger/

Evidently the connection between 9/11 Ctists and Holocaust deniers seems to be stronger than that of Holocaust deniers and individuals that reject unfounded 9/11 CT fairy tales.
Click to expand...

I consider 9/11 CTs to be a subset of the Holocaust Denier Universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom