Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[aggle-rithm]

There is not one example of a structure where an upper part C can one-way crush down the lower part A (C = 1/10 A) when dropped on A by gravity.

How about two-way crush down?

 

[aggle-rithm]

No, if the assembly of elements of the upper part are similar to the lower part, except that the lower part previously carried the upper part and thus was slightly stronger, then the upper part can never have the momentum to destroy the lower part.

I'm not an engineer, so I don't know how to calculate static and dynamic loads.

However, you appear to not even understand the conceptual difference between the two.

I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but if I were you I would demand a refund.

 

[Heiwa]

Good....you at least defined what you actually mean by "smaller"....

Thats a start....



1. You seem to be using the entire structure "A" instead of the actual contact points that "C" would be applying forces to....



2. You seem to be assuming that the "deformations" in "A" and "C" will necessairly be of the exact same nature....

If "C" has already "broken free" and is essentially falling and the contact points for "A" are still attached to the rest of the structure then why would the "deformation" in both be exactly the same? Why couldnt the "deformation" in "A" consist of structural points being "deformed" to the point of breaking?

1. The energy applied by C at contact with A evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface C/A. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in C and A are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that C is not rigid as assumed by Mackey; part C being one mass M, while part A is a house of cards!

2. Evidently the forces applied on C and A due to impact C on A have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! One reason is that A is bigger, can absorb more energy and is fixed on ground, while C is smaller and, after impact, is only in contact with A. So the deformations of elements/connections in A and C differ; actually they are a function of time after impact.

Please note that part C is not free after contact with A. C was free (actually free falling) prior contact with A and then, no forces were applied between elements/connections of C. After impact, C is subject to big forces applied by A on C.

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces. Reason being that the energy applied was too small, only elastic deformations took place, etc. In all other cases A arrests C due to local failures in and in the vicinity interface C/A and, in certain cases, interface A/ground. In no case C can one-way crush down A as suggested by Bazant, BLGB, Seffen and Mackey.

 

[beachnut]

I doubt that you are an engineer. You never involve yourself in technicalities.

When I see your work on 911 it is the opposite of engineering as you make up delusional nonsense of controlled demolition. Don't be surprised when people do not have to use technical jargon to expose your delusions. Your work is not applied engineering.

You also expose your failure to apply engineering skills by supporting posts of Heiwa's idiotic axioms and failed ideas. Pizza box engineering and kids jumping on beds are the tools of Heiwa; are they your tools too?

 

[FineWine]

Part C has simply less elements connected to one another than part A = C is smaller than A.
This means that part C can absorb less strain energy (elastic deformation) and plastic energy (plastic deformation) and requires less energy to be ripped apart (failures) than part A.

When part C applies its energy on part A, it is in the form of forces that displace elements in part A and produce elastic and plastic deformations and failures in A. However, part A - assisted by ground, applies the same forces on part C and thus produces elastic and plastic deformations and failures in C.

That's to begin with. So after a while part C is heavily damaged after the collision C/A, if the energy was sufficient to start with. Next step is what damaged part C can do later! Can it continue to one-way crush down part A? The answer is no.

If you do not agree, go to The Heiwa Challenge thread and demonstrate your belief with a suitable structure.

Stop this idiocy! Thirteen floors fall onto one floor and crush it. Now fourteen floors fall on one floor and crush it. And so on.

 

[Bluesky]

Nice try, but there are a few serious problems with your model..

Not really I just wanted to prove Heiwas theory wrong

It seems the floors in the twin towers were able to statically withstand the weight of 11 additional floors. Don't take my word for it. The NIST says it right in their Dec. 2007 FAQ on the collapses. Read question 1 at the link below.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm.

Impact forces are higher than static forces. If the angle of impact is not completely flat then the full weight of the upper level will impact the lower level in a single location rather than being spread across the floor. How does that work in your theory?

Taping the columns together vertically probably isn't too realistic either, as it decreases the area of restraint and reduces the moment needed to cause buckling. There should be glue between the bottoms and tops of adjoining box's columns also. The glue here should be sufficient to ensure the original tensile strength and stiffness of the cardboard is maintained.

It doesn't sound like you use anything to provide for the spandrel beams either. They were not insignificant and were about 40% of the height of the columns. If the pizza boxes are 1.75 inches high you should put .75 inch high horizontal bands of thinner cardboard around the perimeter of each pizza box which is glued to each vertical column on that pizza box.

It looks like you are going to have to add a lot more glue and some additional cardboard for the spandrels to make a realistic model. If you do it this way let us know how it works then.

Taping the column worked fine. The glued horizontal provides lateral stabilty to the column. The the structural sytem had no spandrel beams, except for the floor diaphragm, which acted as a spandrel. Since the columns are quite wide then there was no problem with lateral stabilty. And I didn't think the point of Heiwas stupid challenge was to make a scale model of WTC.

But this model satisfied all the conditions of Heiwa's challenge

 

[Bluesky]

1. The energy applied by C at contact with A evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface C/A. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in C and A are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that C is not rigid as assumed by Mackey; part C being one mass M, while part A is a house of cards!

2. Evidently the forces applied on C and A due to impact C on A have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! One reason is that A is bigger, can absorb more energy and is fixed on ground, while C is smaller and, after impact, is only in contact with A. So the deformations of elements/connections in A and C differ; actually they are a function of time after impact.

Please note that part C is not free after contact with A. C was free (actually free falling) prior contact with A and then, no forces were applied between elements/connections of C. After impact, C is subject to big forces applied by A on C.

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces. Reason being that the energy applied was too small, only elastic deformations took place, etc. In all other cases A arrests C due to local failures in and in the vicinity interface C/A and, in certain cases, interface A/ground. In no case C can one-way crush down A as suggested by Bazant, BLGB, Seffen and Mackey.

Perhaps I can explain using Heiwa babble:

1. The energy applied by A at contact with C evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface A/C. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in A and C are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that neither A or C is not rigid; part A being one mass M, while part C is another. If the angle of A/C interface is such then the total impact at the C/A interface will be higher than the average impact force distributed along the whole A/C interface

2. Evidently the forces applied on A and C due to impact A on C have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! If the impact force on A/C interface is dependant on the A/C force being impacted over its average area, then the A/C impact force due to A/C when C impact at an angle will be locally concentrated at the A/C joint interface. The reaction at the interface is equal and opposite, but the concentration of force at any particular location is dependant on the angle of the interface and what exists at the interface. If the force at A/C iinterface is concentrated into a loacl area of weakness at either A or C then the damage will be concentrated according to their strength. .

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces, if it a solid mass, and dropped uniformly onto each other, or indeed if it is two balls. However if C is square and not dropped vertically then C is likley to put a dent in A, or A will put a dent in C depending on the angle of incidence. A dent is an inelastic deformation. If A or C has inadequate local ductilty to absorb the energy or create a dent, then the defermation will increase until all the potential energy is absorbed or until the deformation. The glass box scheme would just fail. Reason being that the energy applied would have to be absorbed over an area that is able to resist it.

Similarly if the box above missed the side of the box below by say the width of the wall, then the impact energy would have to be transferred thro the horizontal element until the vertical element could take the load. It would not matter if the eccentricity was on A or C.

Or alternatively if you want to prove it using pizza boxes, then its easy and see my earlier post.!

 

[Heiwa]

Not really I just wanted to prove Heiwas theory wrong



But this model satisfied all the conditions of Heiwa's challenge

So build one and produce the required test and report result. A video would be helpful.

 

[funk de fino]

So build one and produce the required test and report result. A video would be helpful.

No, a video would not be useful, you would just lie about what you see in it. Just like the videos of the collapses you lie about.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As Lord Kelvin said:

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Tony has a valid point here. It's been advanced as intuitively obvious that a tilt will lead to the absence of a jolt, but no calculations have been advanced to show that this is the case. Since it really is just a matter of simple trigonometry and arithmetic, I spent a couple of hours putting the required numbers into a spreadsheet to demonstrate the principle.

I've started by defining a structure, which is similar but not identical to WTC1 (simply because I don't have the exact numbers; if anyone wants to go to the trouble of supplying them, I can substitute them into the model). The structure I've defined has 240 perimeter columns, spaced at 1m along four 59m side walls, each 31m from the centreline, each with an ultimate yield strength of 0.0063Mg, where M is the mass of the structure above; four corner core columns at ±20, ±12.5m, each of ultimate strength 0.09375Mg; and forty-four further core columns at all other points on a grid with X values ±20, 14, 8, 2m and Y values ±12.5, 10, 2.5m of ultimate strength 0.02625Mg. This is similar in dimensions to WTC1, and has the key properties that the overall safety factor is 3, that the core and perimeter bear equal proportions of the weight, and that the four corner core columns carry 25% of the core loads.

Next, I consider the case where an upper block of mass M of this structure falls on a lower block. I'm assuming that the angle of tilt is small enough that each column of the upper block impacts on the corresponding column of the lower block. For the behaviour on impact, I'm taking a greatly simplified model of column failure, in which the resistive force increases linearly up to the ultimate strength at 0.2% compression, then decreases linearly to zero at a further 3% compression. This has the useful property that the energy absorbed by the column is approximately correct, therefore the impulse applied to the upper block is reasonable. I've taken the column length as 4m, representing the height of a single floor. I'm also assuming that the moment of inertia of the upper block is very large, and that its rotational velocity is zero throughout the collision; in other words, the tilt angle is taken to be invariant.

The zero for the Z co-ordinate is defined as the level of the tops of the columns of the lower block, which are assumed to be coplanar. The process of collision is assumed to be as follows: As each column end of the upper block reaches z=0, the column below it is compressed elastically by 0.2%, during which time the force exerted by it increases linearly to its ultimate strength. It is then compressed inelastically by 3%, during which the force decreases linearly to zero. Outside this range the column exerts no force on the upper block. The forces are summed for all columns as a function of the height of the upper block, and this sum is subtracted from the force due to gravity to give a resultant force on the entire structure. This is then divided by the mass of the upper block. The result is a graph of acceleration of the upper block against height fallen. It is simple enough, given an initial velocity, to integrate this to give acceleration against time; however, for the purposes of this study, where peak acceleration is the main quantity of interest, acceleration as a function of distance will suffice.

The upper block is assumed to be rotated an angle B about an axis in the plane of the lower ends of its columns, oriented at an angle A to the long axis of the core. Any angular orientation may be represented in this form. By simple trigonometry, the height difference between any column end at co-ordinates (x, y) and the centre of the lower plane of the block is found to be:

Delta z = x cos A sin B - y sin A sin B

The upper columns strike the lower in the order of decreasing delta z. There is some disagreement about the angle at which the upper block fell; we have the following statements from Tony Szamboti, which are not internally consistent.

The upper block was not at an angle for the entire 114 feet we measured it's fall.

I already stated here that I withdrew that as an argument.

Of course, there was a tilt at the beginning of the collapse. I never said there was not.

Therefore, let us look at the behaviour of the block as a function of angle over a reasonable range.

Figure 5-8, NCSTAR1-6D, clearly shows a tilt in WTC 1 before the collapse even began.

NIST estimates this tilt at 8^o as the southern wall buckled and initiated the collapse (NCSTAR1-6D, pg. 312 and elsewhere).

From this, 0-8^o has been chosen as a reasonable range. I have therefore calculated acceleration as a function of distance for tilts of 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5 and 8^o about axes at 0, 5, 10 and 30^o to the long axis of the core, as a general indication of how the level of jolt would be expected to vary with both angles.

Fig. 1 shows a group of results for smaller angles. The result for zero tilt, as expected, shows a very strong jolt; a zero tilt fall results in all the columns making contact simultaneously, allowing the lower structure to resist collapse with its entire strength. Since, in this case, the ultimate strength of the lower structure has been set at three times the weight of the upper block, we see a resultant peak acceleration of -2G (where positive acceleration is defined as downwards). However, this peak falls off rapidly with tilt angle; at a tilt of only 0.25^o, the acceleration does not decrease below zero, and for greater tilt angles the structure continues to accelerate downwards at all times.

Fig. 2 shows a range of curves for tilt angles of 8^o about different axes. It can be seen that at no angle does the acceleration fall below 0.66G; as the angle of the tilt axis increases, the variation in acceleration becomes less, and varies very little above 5^o off the long axis of the block.

Finally, fig. 3 shows the value of the highest negative peak in acceleration as a function of tilt angle and axis orientation. Again, we see that the maximum jolt falls off rapidly with tilt angle, and at no angle above 0.25^o is any deceleration seen.

This analysis considers only a single floor of supports. It should be noted that, for angles of 3.7^o or greater, the difference in relative z values between the highest and lowest columns is greater than the floor spacing of 4m used in this model, so at this point the curve of the next floor would overlap that of the floor under consideration. This will cause additional averaging of the acceleration curves, and will not in general lead to a more intense jolt, as this would require simultaneous impacts between column groups on different floors, a highly unlikely event.

Three main conclusions may be drawn from these results. Firstly, if the drop of the upper block is carefully controlled so as to avoid any tilt, then a discernible jolt would be expected on impact with the lower floor. This is consistent with the observation that:

...measurements of the roof in the falling upper block in the Balzac-Vitry demolition showed a severe deceleration when it impacted the lower block after two stories were intentionally removed.

Since this requires precise timing of the removal of the supports - any difference in timing resulting in a turning moment, and hence rotation of the upper block and a tilted impact - it might be reasonable to suggest that the presence of such a jolt is a signature of controlled, and its absence of uncontrolled, collapses. Therefore, the absence of a jolt in the collapse of WTC1 is itself evidence that the collapse initiation was not a well-controlled process; this argues against, rather than in favour of, controlled demolition.

Secondly, it can be seen that the statement:

...the tilt would not allow for a natural collapse without a jolt.

is comprehensively refuted; the tilt alone is found to be responsible for the absence of the jolt.

Finally, it is noted that, for tilts of 0.25^o and above, at no point does the upper block experience an overall deceleration; its acceleration is always downwards. In fact, for a tilt angle of 8^o, it is necessary to increase the safety factor threefold before even a very brief period of negative acceleration is seen. From this it can therefore be seen that the tilt alone must result in collapse progression, without the need for dynamic loading of the lower block. This is because the tilt causes the weight of the upper block to fracture the lower supports separately rather than simultaneously, and no smaller group of these supports is able to resist the weight of the upper block; by the time another group makes contact, the previous group has already failed. Therefore, the tilt alone not only allows for a natural collapse with no significant jolt, it makes such a collapse inevitable.

Dave

 

[sylvan8798]

Very nice, Dave.

 

[grmcdorman]

Very nice, Mr. Rogers.

Edit: Darn you, sylvan8798!

 

[newton3376]

1. The energy applied by C at contact with A evidently produces forces at the contact points in interface C/A. As both C and A are assemblies of material elements/connections all elements in C and A are affected by these forces. Note, e.g. that C is not rigid as assumed by Mackey; part C being one mass M, while part A is a house of cards!

I find some of your wording a bit strange (energy "produces" forces) but that is another matter....

We have to be careful when saying things like "all elements in C and A are affected by these forces"...the way you worded that could lead to incorrect conclusions...

Are we to assume that every time part of C impacts part of A that the force is transmitted through the entire structure? What if a particular impact occurs at a connection point and the connection breaks?

We have no guarantee that the various individual pieces of A will be able to absorb every impact with some section of C without breaking.

As far as your comment regarding Mackey....I have tried to find errors in what I have read from him and so far I have found none. Part C and part A are both complicated structures with various pieces....from my perspective it is you that is oversimplifying the situation....

2. Evidently the forces applied on C and A due to impact C on A have different effects on the elements/connections of A and C! One reason is that A is bigger, can absorb more energy and is fixed on ground, while C is smaller and, after impact, is only in contact with A. So the deformations of elements/connections in A and C differ; actually they are a function of time after impact.

Again....you keep thinking of A as if it is some kind of soild block or something...

A has many many interconnected pieces so what makes you think these various pieces can survive an impact from C without breaking apart?

C doesnt impact ALL OF A at once....it causes structural failure at various points as it impacts that particular floor, which then also begins to fall due to gravity and adds to the falling debris that then hits the next floor...etc

Please note that part C is not free after contact with A. C was free (actually free falling) prior contact with A and then, no forces were applied between elements/connections of C. After impact, C is subject to big forces applied by A on C.

C is free in the sense that it is not structurally connected to A and is in free fall due to gravity....

Just because A exerts some force on C as C destroys parts of A doesnt mean that we can say that C is now structurally connected to A.

And please keep in mind that gravity itself is a force*....

In many cases when you drop a C on A, C bounces due to these forces. Reason being that the energy applied was too small, only elastic deformations took place, etc. In all other cases A arrests C due to local failures in and in the vicinity interface C/A and, in certain cases, interface A/ground. In no case C can one-way crush down A as suggested by Bazant, BLGB, Seffen and Mackey.

Please give me examples of these "cases" you keep referring to....

How many "cases" analogous to the WTC collapse are you referencing?

Did you read the Bazant papers? Ive looked at them....they seem to be quite thorough....

Maybe you should try to publish something to refute them and see how widely accepted and well received your paper is by the engineering community?



* I am not referring to the gravitational constant G but to what we call the "gravitional force" in classical Newtonian mechanics. I know that technically the idea of gravity being a "force" is disputed from a general relativity point of view.

 

[Heiwa]

A. I find some of your wording a bit strange (energy "produces" forces) but that is another matter....

B. We have to be careful when saying things like "all elements in C and A are affected by these forces"...the way you worded that could lead to incorrect conclusions...

C. Are we to assume that every time part of C impacts part of A that the force is transmitted through the entire structure? What if a particular impact occurs at a connection point and the connection breaks?

D. We have no guarantee that the various individual pieces of A will be able to absorb every impact with some section of C without breaking.

E. As far as your comment regarding Mackey....I have tried to find errors in what I have read from him and so far I have found none. Part C and part A are both complicated structures with various pieces....from my perspective it is you that is oversimplifying the situation....



F. Again....you keep thinking of A as if it is some kind of soild block or something...

G. A has many many interconnected pieces so what makes you think these various pieces can survive an impact from C without breaking apart?

H. C doesnt impact ALL OF A at once....it causes structural failure at various points as it impacts that particular floor, which then also begins to fall due to gravity and adds to the falling debris that then hits the next floor...etc



I. C is free in the sense that it is not structurally connected to A and is in free fall due to gravity....

J. Just because A exerts some force on C as C destroys parts of A doesnt mean that we can say that C is now structurally connected to A.

K. And please keep in mind that gravity itself is a force*....



L. Please give me examples of these "cases" you keep referring to....

M. How many "cases" analogous to the WTC collapse are you referencing?

N. Did you read the Bazant papers? Ive looked at them....they seem to be quite thorough....

O. Maybe you should try to publish something to refute them and see how widely accepted and well received your paper is by the engineering community?



* I am not referring to the gravitational constant G but to what we call the "gravitional force" in classical Newtonian mechanics. I know that technically the idea of gravity being a "force" is disputed from a general relativity point of view.

A. Layman's terms. Energy (Nm) is just Force (N) displacing a Distance (m).

B. Agree.

C. Yes, the forces (!) are transmitted through both structures C and A. If anything breaks you have to consider it; the force will be transmitted somewhere else.

D. Correct. Same applies to C and the forces A applies on C.

E. Hm! Mackey assumes part C is only one material point M and forgets that C is an assembly of material points/elements/connections.

F. No! How can you suggest that? A is similar to C - just bigger and stronger! Remember A carried C before impact. C could never carry A..

G. A will suffer local failures like C. Plenty of energy applied is absorbed that way.

H. ??? Unclear. Very unclear. Do you suggest that C knocks off a piece of A and that this piece of A starts to destroy the remainder of A. Please clarify.

I. Free? C is in contact with A and A is in contact with C. It is similar to intercourse ... or wrestling.

J. Whatever. A and C apply forces on one another.

K. Of course. C could not drop on A or ground without gravity. Ground!! What would happen if C missed A and dropped on ground? Wouldn't C get damaged? Or would C one-way crush down ground? Actually, when C impacts A, C impacts ground as A is connected to ground.

L. Just check JREF! I have demonstrated many cases/structures; pizza boxes, lemons, rubber balls, ships, sponges, &c.

M. None! WTC 1, 2 and 7 were all destroyed by controlled demolitions.

N. Of course. My paper debunking Bazant is, I am told (by ASCE + editor Ross Corotis), getting published in ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics soon.

O. See N.

Thanks for your post. It seems you have missed a lot, e.g. that a part C of a structure A cannot one-way crush down A (C = 1/10 A) under any circumstances. So the 911 WTC destructions could not have been produced by an upper part (C) dropping on a lower part (A) connected to ground.

 

[sylvan8798]

I find some of your wording a bit strange (energy "produces" forces) but that is another matter....

<snip>

Maybe you should try to publish something to refute them and see how widely accepted and well received your paper is by the engineering community?
.

If Heiwa's rants don't seem to make sense, it's because they're not even in the ballpark of sense. I'm sure we are all looking forward to his "paper" appearing in ASCE JEM. The crux of his premise seems to be that falling debris can't break intact structures, an idea which I'm sure would come as a surprise to most engineers/physicists.

 

[Heiwa]

The crux of his premise seems to be that falling debris can't break intact structures, an idea which I'm sure would come as a surprise to most engineers/physicists.

The only thing that is falling prior impact is part C. When part C impacts part A and applies its energy, forces develop, etc, etc. It seems we all agree to that.
What happens then? Does C break away parts from A that become debris? Or does A break away parts from C that become debris.

Yes, it may happen, even if most damaged elements will not break away but hang on to parts C and A.

So, do you suggest that the few elements that become free - free debris - start to drop and destroy A??

Can you give any example of that?

What elements of C and A will be detached and then drop and contact some other elements of A?

Suggest you make a model and demonstrate your suggestion that debris from a structure will destroy the same structure. Or you have some real examples?

Looking at videos of WTC 1 it seems big sections of upper part C perimeter wall columns - 30 m wide, 8 floors high = big debris - are ejected outside the structure below and drop to ground.

 

[bill smith]

If Heiwa's rants don't seem to make sense, it's because they're not even in the ballpark of sense. I'm sure we are all looking forward to his "paper" appearing in ASCE JEM. The crux of his premise seems to be that falling debris can't break intact structures, an idea which I'm sure would come as a surprise to most engineers/physicists.

I'm looking forward to Heiwa's paper too but not as much as 'm looking forward to Bazant's reply. I haven't seen magic explained in engineering terms since 9/11. This time thousands will be trying to spot the trick. Bet it won't take long. lol

 

[bill smith]

The only thing that is falling prior impact is part C. When part C impacts part A and applies its energy, forces develop, etc, etc. It seems we all agree to that.
What happens then? Does C break away parts from A that become debris? Or does A break away parts from C that become debris.

Yes, it may happen, even if most damaged elements will not break away but hang on to parts C and A.

So, do you suggest that the few elements that become free - free debris - start to drop and destroy A??

Can you give any example of that?

What elements of C and A will be detached and then drop and contact some other elements of A?

Suggest you make a model and demonstrate your suggestion that debris from a structure will destroy the same structure. Or you have some real examples?

Looking at videos of WTC 1 it seems big sections of upper part C perimeter wall columns - 30 m wide, 8 floors high = big debris - are ejected outside the structure below and drop to ground.

Heiwa if all or most of the core columns had failed in part A would the collapse have proceeded just as we saw on television ?

 

[beachnut]

I'm looking forward to Heiwa's paper too but not as much as 'm looking forward to Bazant's reply. I haven't seen magic explained in engineering terms since 9/11. This time thousands will be trying to spot the trick. Bet it won't take long. lol

If you take Heiwa's work to an engineer you will understand why his work will not earn a Pulitzer Prize for exposing 911 delusional bad guys deep in your fantasy world of 911. Plus there is no moronic delusion class for the Pulitzer Prize.

I love it when you don't have to be an engineer to understand Heiwa was proved wrong on 911, but it does not hurt. If you start school now, in six years you could earn a masters in engineering and have the same schooling as many here at JREF in engineering. But you will support Heiwa with your failed opinions based on your delusional notions of what happen on 911. I am keeping track of what you and Heiwa got right about 911. The math needed to comprehend this list is at the truther simple level.

1. 9 September 2001.

 

[FineWine]

I'm looking forward to Heiwa's paper too but not as much as 'm looking forward to Bazant's reply. I haven't seen magic explained in engineering terms since 9/11. This time thousands will be trying to spot the trick. Bet it won't take long. lol

You keep neglecting to tell us why thousands of engineers all over the world have failed to spot the errors a lone agenda-driven incompetent professes to see. Bazant's reply and the replies of the other real engineers at the ASCE journal are absolutely predictable. They will emphatically reject the idiocy spouted by Heiwa. The comic part comes in when your dimwitted guru starts braying about the NWO and religious fundamentalists and you, of course, parrot him.