Back to Bazant
Did you know that on September 13th, 2001, he submitted not just one but TWO papers to engineering journals pushing the official WTC collapse theory?
1) Bazant, Z.P. (2001). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Vol. 34, No. 8 (October), pp. 1 and 3 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001).
2) Bazant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 128 (No. 1), 2–6; with Addendum, March (No. 3), 369–370 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001, revised Oct. 5, 2001).
You know, a cynical person might suspect him of a hidden agenda...
1) Bazant, Z.P. (2001). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?” SIAM News (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) Vol. 34, No. 8 (October), pp. 1 and 3 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001).
2) Bazant, Z.P., and Zhou, Y. (2002). “Why did the World Trade Center collapse?—Simple analysis.” J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 128 (No. 1), 2–6; with Addendum, March (No. 3), 369–370 (submitted Sept. 13, 2001, revised Oct. 5, 2001).
You know, a cynical person might suspect him of a hidden agenda...
posted by spooked at 8:04 AM
7 Comments:
And both were published in engineering journals, meaning they were/are subjected to peer review and the analysis of engineers around the world. Bazant is not afraid to have his work face the light of day, available for any and all to read and consider and debate and learn from.
Unlike one set of moronic wannabe's who are afraid to have their crap face the world.
Guess what, anonyass-- this blog is more open to the world than an obscure engineering journal.
My readers are my peer-review-- unlike two or three hand-picked scientific reviewers.
And I might point out that no one yet has refuted any of the critiques of Bazant we have made here.
Further I would note that in the political climate right after 9/11, few people were willing to question the official story-- even scientists.
Which must have been the case since what kind of scientific analysis could one have done in the one day after 9/11, since Bazant submitted the 2 papers on 9/13?
Now scientists seem to be waking up, as Bazant's latest "analysis" was apparently rejected from the "journal of engineering mechanics".
Oh Bazant is a psychic supergenius! That is how he not only knew how and why the WTC "collapsed", but managed to figure out the proper calculations, check his math and submit his "analyses" in only one day. Probably he had to rewind his VCR over and over.
And his latest nonsense was REJECTED.
Peer review, yeah right!
Dude, Spooky. For a guy who considers chicken wire to be an acceptable form of scientific research, you sure are gettin' pretty full of yourself here with this blog of yours.
Your readers are your peer-reviewers? And you wonder why this truth movement isn't taken seriously by anyone with a shred of common sense. Who in God's name would take the word of some anonymous blogger and his one or two followers over an individual whose schooling, credentials, and expertise can be verified?
Honestly. Yes, I'm sure you do consider your readers to be on par with your definition of "peer-review".
After all. It is quite like Retards on Parade here.
Doesn't Chad sound exactly like "Swart", and "Conspiracy Smasher"?
Here's Chad's bio:
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Astrological Sign: Capricorn
Zodiac Year: Snake
Location: Harrisburg : PA : United States
About Me
Just your average Eagles lovin', Yankees cheerin', beer drinkin', shower singin', Su-Doku doin', volleyball playin',
Bush votin' gay guy
tring to find any nitch in a little place I like to call... Harrisburg.
You can punch a hole in an apple using a straw. How do you think that makes your milkshake feel?
I never completed my frozen dairy beverages sensitivity class, so quite frankly, I could care less about the shake."
I didn't know the CIA would take in crap like this. Scraping the bottom of the Harrisburg barrel--if he is really there.
We always suspected Swart and Conspirachy Smasher were really
Bush votin' gay guys.
Post a Comment
<< Home