WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

well to get back to topic.

Heiwa's explenation for little kids is prolly far better and accurate than Bazant's et al his explenation for big kids.

i wonder if someone can bring up the math to disprove it.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Care to rephrase that? I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

when i make a "theory" and want to publish it, and maybe even get it peer-reviewed. i dont have to backup my assumptions. i can take a simplification when i lack the ability and knowledge to do it accurate, and that simplification or assumption has not to be backedup with evidence, a calculation or reality, i can use it, and others will have to prove that wrong.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
when i make a "theory" and want to publish it, and maybe even get it peer-reviewed. i dont have to backup my assumptions. i can take a simplification when i lack the ability and knowledge to do it accurate, and that simplification or assumption has not to be backedup with evidence, a calculation or reality, i can use it, and others will have to prove that wrong.
Click to expand...


No.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
i wonder who of us two is really interested in the truth.
Click to expand...

The one who avoids answering questions is not interested in the truth. That would be you. Keep running you coward.

How can you slate Bazant and Seffen for simplifying it yet praise Heiwa for talking about kids on beds? Hypocritical much?

DC said:
could you pls stopp your slandering, i think that is not JREF worthy, or are my expections to JREFers to high?
Click to expand...

Youre a JREFer. With a faster posting rate than me.
 
funk de fino said:
The one who avoids answering questions is not interested in the truth. That would be you. Keep running you coward.

How can you slate Bazant and Seffen for simplifying it yet praise Heiwa for talking about kids on beds? Hypocritical much?



Youre a JREFer. With a faster posting rate than me.
Click to expand...

oh no, im a guest on JREF, with a troll like posting rate.

and how much do you hope to get an answer that fullfills your prejudice ?
 
funk de fino said:
How can you slate Bazant and Seffen for simplifying it yet praise Heiwa for talking about kids on beds? Hypocritical much?
Click to expand...

Maybe because Bazant and Seffen promote conspiracy theories like:
1. All supports suddenly, magically disappear below the upper block (due to fire or heat).
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters during 0.8-0.9 seconds - nothing there to stop it.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment hitting 280+ columns that occupy 0.13% of the total impact area that happens to be in the way.
4. The upper block is still intact after this enormous impact (that nobody has ever seen)
5. The upper block (mostly air actually) destroys the columns below that only occupy 0.13% of the foot print area (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti due to new impacts at regular intervals).
6. The upper block lands intact 9-11 seconds later (after say 90+ impacts on the lower structure) on a heap of rubble (i.e. what remains of the lower structure).
7. The upper block selfdestructs after landing, etc.
using differential equations, integrations, normal equations, etc. that do not prove anything.
Who are they actually writing for? Does anyone read such science-fiction fantasies? Or is it to promote some new Hollywood conspiracy production?

Why not do like me! Write for normal people and use only proven facts and established physics and simple math +,-,x,/,=, etc. The result is of course different but that's life. Many scientists do not get it right the first time.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Maybe because Bazant and Seffen promote conspiracy theories like:
1. All supports suddenly, magically disappear below the upper block (due to fire or heat).
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters during 0.8-0.9 seconds - nothing there to stop it.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment hitting 280+ columns that occupy 0.13% of the total impact area that happens to be in the way.
4. The upper block is still intact after this enormous impact (that nobody has ever seen)
5. The upper block (mostly air actually) destroys the columns below that only occupy 0.13% of the foot print area (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti due to new impacts at regular intervals).
6. The upper block lands intact 9-11 seconds later (after say 90+ impacts on the lower structure) on a heap of rubble (i.e. what remains of the lower structure).
7. The upper block selfdestructs after landing, etc.
using differential equations, integrations, normal equations, etc. that do not prove anything.
Who are they actually writing for? Does anyone read such science-fiction fantasies? Or is it to promote some new Hollywood conspiracy production?

Why not do like me! Write for normal people and use only proven facts and established physics and simple math +,-,x,/,=, etc. The result is of course different but that's life. Many scientists do not get it right the first time.
Click to expand...

Some never get it right.
 
I though Heiwa said he was finished with us?

Yet another claim he got wrong, then.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
oh no, im a guest on JREF, with a troll like posting rate.
Click to expand...

Then so am I, without a troll MO

DC said:
and how much do you hope to get an answer that fullfills your prejudice ?
Click to expand...

I am an educator by trade nowadays, I am trying to educate you. You run away like a coward. You have not answered one simple question I asked many posts ago and yet you tried to turn it around and ask me questions.

You are not inerested in the truth. None of the truthers here are, there may be some who are, but they do not post here. All we have here are trolls, fake engineers, anti semites, ideologically blinded folks and people playing games. You are in the playing games category along with Last Child. You make it easier for the debunking side by showing yourselves up to be petty tapdancers to all the people who come here and lurk looking for answers.

You do debunkers jobs better than most of the people you call JREFers.
 
Heiwa said:
Maybe because Bazant and Seffen promote conspiracy theories like:
1. All supports suddenly, magically disappear below the upper block (due to fire or heat).
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters during 0.8-0.9 seconds - nothing there to stop it.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment hitting 280+ columns that occupy 0.13% of the total impact area that happens to be in the way.
4. The upper block is still intact after this enormous impact (that nobody has ever seen)
5. The upper block (mostly air actually) destroys the columns below that only occupy 0.13% of the foot print area (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti due to new impacts at regular intervals).
6. The upper block lands intact 9-11 seconds later (after say 90+ impacts on the lower structure) on a heap of rubble (i.e. what remains of the lower structure).
7. The upper block selfdestructs after landing, etc.
using differential equations, integrations, normal equations, etc. that do not prove anything.
Who are they actually writing for? Does anyone read such science-fiction fantasies? Or is it to promote some new Hollywood conspiracy production?

Why not do like me! Write for normal people and use only proven facts and established physics and simple math +,-,x,/,=, etc. The result is of course different but that's life. Many scientists do not get it right the first time.
Click to expand...

We are not interested in your lies anymore.
 
funk de fino said:
Then so am I, without a troll MO



I am an educator by trade nowadays, I am trying to educate you. You run away like a coward. You have not answered one simple question I asked many posts ago and yet you tried to turn it around and ask me questions.

You are not inerested in the truth. None of the truthers here are, there may be some who are, but they do not post here. All we have here are trolls, fake engineers, anti semites, ideologically blinded folks and people playing games. You are in the playing games category along with Last Child. You make it easier for the debunking side by showing yourselves up to be petty tapdancers to all the people who come here and lurk looking for answers.

You do debunkers jobs better than most of the people you call JREFers.
Click to expand...

what do you want me to educate in regards to the collapses?
 
Heiwa said:
Maybe because Bazant and Seffen promote conspiracy theories like:
1. All supports suddenly, magically disappear below the upper block (due to fire or heat).
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters during 0.8-0.9 seconds - nothing there to stop it.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment hitting 280+ columns that occupy 0.13% of the total impact area that happens to be in the way.
4. The upper block is still intact after this enormous impact (that nobody has ever seen)
5. The upper block (mostly air actually) destroys the columns below that only occupy 0.13% of the foot print area (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti due to new impacts at regular intervals).
6. The upper block lands intact 9-11 seconds later (after say 90+ impacts on the lower structure) on a heap of rubble (i.e. what remains of the lower structure).
7. The upper block selfdestructs after landing, etc.
using differential equations, integrations, normal equations, etc. that do not prove anything.
Who are they actually writing for? Does anyone read such science-fiction fantasies? Or is it to promote some new Hollywood conspiracy production?

Why not do like me! Write for normal people and use only proven facts and established physics and simple math +,-,x,/,=, etc. The result is of course different but that's life. Many scientists do not get it right the first time.
Click to expand...



Why not do like you? You are an incompetent who is incapable of correcting his errors. You have had the benefit of learning from several extremely bright and knowledgeable people here--people who actually design large structures--and you have learned nothing.
 
Heiwa said:
Talking about junk, Bazant and Frank Greening have just (31 March 2008) produced a new paper that you find as reference [2] in my latest article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .
So Bazant and Greening suggests that the upper block (solid, rigid, uniform density, etc) remains intact during the whole incident and only selfdestructs afterwards. Any evidence for such a preposterous suggestion? Seen on any videos?
It is sad how scientists can suggest:
1. All supports suddenly disappear below the upper block.
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment
4. The upper block is still intact.
5. The upper block (most air) destroys the columns below (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti).
6. The upper block lands intact on a heap of rubble.
7. The upper block selfdestructs.
On any video of the WTC1 collapse none of 1 - 7 can be seen.

I sometimes wonder about US science! Is it just some crazy ideas in the minds of some individuals without contact with real matter?
Click to expand...



Tell us about the scientists on your planet who have discovered errors in the NIST Report, or in Dr. Greening's papers.
 
It appears that Heiwa just thinks American scientists are either idiots or ideologically motivated. Somehow I remain dubious. Shocking, that.
 
pomeroo said:
Why not do like you? You are an incompetent who is incapable of correcting his errors. You have had the benefit of learning from several extremely bright and knowledgeable people here--people who actually design large structures--and you have learned nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I have heard several times I am an incompetent, incapable liar, etc., etc. Just propaganda of course. I am just the contrary. Very clever. And brave. Good looking too. Succesful in my business. But all this is OT. We discuss collapse arrest. A normal phenomenon when steel structures fail locally due to fire/heat.

So why are Bazant and Seffen and NIST promoting theories to the contrary without any evidence for their basic assumptions? Why do they not accept collapse arrest as a normal result of local failures due heat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom