• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

Heiwa

Banned
H
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
3,148
Please remember your Membership Agreement especially the "Be civil and polite" part, also starting new threads with identical content to a previous thread or threads is borderline breaching of Rule 6. On this occasion I have merely merged your two threads and removed the breach of your Membership Agreement; further breaches will result in further Moderator action.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.


How could WTC1, 2 collapse due to gravity forces alone after some local failures up top?

NIST does not explain it and two scientists, Bazant and Seffen, have come to assistance: the upper block is solid (uniform density throughout) and crushes the lower structure like a sledge hammer hitting a house of cards.

In my little article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm paras 1.1 - 1.5 (it takes a few minutes to read) I suggest, using common sense, that the upper block is no sledge hammer and the lower structure is no house of cards.

Actually, if the collapse is initiated as alleged by NIST, the uppr block could only slice some floors of the lower structure before the collapse is arrested; Reason is misalignment of colliding structures and that the lower structure actually destroys the lower part of the upper block until the collapse is arrested after some local failures (a few floors are damaged).

My text has been peer reviewed by some very clever guys that liked it - now it is up to the horrid critics of JREF to find some errors. Good luck. Praise is also welcome.

Heiwa
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.


How could WTC1, 2 collapse due to gravity forces alone after some local failures up top?

NIST does not explain it and two scientists, Bazant and Seffen, have come to assistance: the upper block is solid (uniform density throughout) and crushes the lower structure like a sledge hammer hitting a house of cards.

In my little article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm paras 1.1 - 1.5 (it takes a few minutes to read) I suggest, using common sense, that the upper block is no sledge hammer and the lower structure is no house of cards.

Actually, if the collapse is initiated as alleged by NIST, the uppr block could only slice some floors of the lower structure before the collapse is arrested; Reason is misalignment of colliding structures and that the lower structure actually destroys the lower part of the upper block until the collapse is arrested after some local failures (a few floors are damaged).

My text has been peer reviewed by some very clever guys that liked it - now it is up to the horrid critics of JREF to find some errors. Good luck. Praise is also welcome.

Heiwa
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heiwa said:
My text has been peer reviewed by some very clever guys that liked it - now it is up to the horrid critics of JREF to find some errors. Good luck. Praise is also welcome.

Heiwa
Click to expand...

Who are the "peers" you mention?
 
From the "article":

"The writer once had a plastic garden table with four legs. Guests and the writer BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground. The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse on the dog below the table due to this impact - as they should according to latest NWO physics. But it was before 911."

You know, seriously, parody threads should end up in humor or something. I'm not saying that it isn't funny (kind of like the knucklehead with the cinder blocks and the fire) but c'mon!
 
Heiwa said:
My text has been peer reviewed by some very clever guys that liked it - now it is up to the horrid critics of JREF to find some errors. Good luck. Praise is also welcome.

Heiwa
Click to expand...

If they reviewed it AND felt it had merit, they are likely idiotic kooks each one.

If it is such a legitimate "text" then have it published in a legit peer reviewed journal.

Oh wait, I forgot, in the world of the truther, all the REAL peer reviewed journals are controlled by big bad brother, and will not allow such brilliant work as yours to be published.

oh my.

TAM:)
 
At what point does repeated assertion of nonsensical ideas and non-facts become a violation of the agreement?

Just asking. I think the OP to this thread qualifies.
 
I suppose if you keep on posting the same debunked baloney, eventually it will come true?

I'm curious as to whether I am considered a clown, a monkey, or some new freakish hybrid of the two for my contributions to pointing out the glaring errors in the prior thread.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
My text has been peer reviewed by some very clever guys that liked it - now it is up to the horrid critics of JREF to find some errors. Good luck. Praise is also welcome.
Click to expand...

Wait... since when did it become the responsibility of a bunch of anonymous Internet posters to critique a technical paper on structural engineering?

Shouldn't something like this be submitted to an actual technical journal in the structural engineering community if its author is to be taken seriously?
 
Heiwa:
What do you think starting a new thread will somehow erase all the moronic things you have said? These "clowns and monkeys" (myself a proud member) are the people that could teach you what you clearly have no clear understanding about if you cared to listen. It's you that has no clue as to what your trying to sell to the ignorant people that are your audience. Your a sad little man, please get help.
 
You also failed to answer some simple yes/no questions in the original thread... Here comes a friendly reminder.
 
16.5 said:
From the "article":

"The writer once had a plastic garden table with four legs. Guests and the writer BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground. The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse on the dog below the table due to this impact - as they should according to latest NWO physics. But it was before 911."
Click to expand...

Since this is for layman, and I am a layman, I'll just say this this part seems absurd, to put it kindly.
 
johnny karate said:
Wait... since when did it become the responsibility of a bunch of anonymous Internet posters to critique a technical paper on structural engineering?

Shouldn't something like this be submitted to an actual technical journal in the structural engineering community if its author is to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...

see the last sentence in my previous post, for the truther template response to your sane suggestion.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
see the last sentence in my previous post, for the truther template response to your sane suggestion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But instead of bringing his paper to us shouldn't he be creating his own journal to publish it in, like any sensible CTer would?
 
This needs to be merged with the other thread or moved to fiction and humor.

Heiwa said:
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Membership Agreement removed.


How could WTC1, 2 collapse due to gravity forces alone after some local failures up top?

My text has been peer reviewed by some very clever guys that liked it - now it is up to the horrid critics of JREF to find some errors. Good luck. Praise is also welcome.

Heiwa
Click to expand...
Seems like your paper failed. You should have been a structural engineer who builds real tall buildings, your work is a mess and totally clueless. Your only support with come from people who are biased on some issue and blindly support 9/11 truth, or people who lack knowledge on this subject and all of 9/11.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

The chief structural engineer for the WTC, agrees with me and you are wrong.

You could say that a big bale of cotton (mass above) rested on the structure below!
Click to expand...
Heiwa says this about 33,000 tons, that is 66 million pounds, and a floor of the WTC can only hold 25 million pounds! Why did the WTC fall? Your paper is flawed, why did you post this tripe again?

Really poor job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
16.5 said:
From the "article":

"The writer once had a plastic garden table with four legs. Guests and the writer BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground. The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse on the dog below the table due to this impact - as they should according to latest NWO physics. But it was before 911."
Click to expand...

Reasoning by analogy is notoriously dangerous. Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom