You've been caught lying again. The top block of WTC 1 did not "explode into dust." Nobody sane thinks it did. Please stop telling these foolish lies.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
You've been caught lying again. The top block of WTC 1 did not "explode into dust." Nobody sane thinks it did. Please stop telling these foolish lies.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Grizzly you talk as if your explanations and those of your fellows were even marginally convincing. Let me tell you they are not for the most part. You will never show that the one-way crush down of WTC1 is possible by gravity alone for the simple reason that it is not possible. End of story.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
You're unqualified opinion isn't particularly valuable to me... sorry. I said it already; that you're either incapable or unwilling to understand the material is solely the responsibly of you to resolve. I can't teach a brick wall...
Last edited:
The explanations are not intended for you. You are far too obtuse to understand them, and too dishonest to admit error. You are hopelessly wedded to your idiocies by your bizarre political agenda. Stop using the incompetent fraud Heiwa's terminology. He doesn't have have the slightest idea of what he's trying to claim.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
You are soley a propagandist FineWine. I don't think there has been any serious attempt at input in arguments from you in a month or more. ' Shouting from the sidelines ' covers it nicely.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
No sweat. You do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll see what happens.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Here is where you fail:
All of your arguments are based on this so-called "axiom" that is neither self-evident nor intellectually supported in any way, shape, or form.
Therefore, all your arguments fail in a spectacular fashion.
Enjoy.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
According to Mr. Bjorkman's CV
'M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 35 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations worldwide. Mr Bjorkman has been a delegate to the IMO for various national administrations and one NGO and has been a speaker at various Safety at Sea conferences. Mr Bjorkman holds several patents concerned with ship safety.'
Tanker and Ferry design, not steelframe building construction
Tanker and Ferry design, not explosive demolition
Tanker and Ferry design, not military research into nanothermites
None of the areas Heiwa is haunting are related to his expertise........I guess this is just a coincidence?
Just asking questions!
According to Mr. Bjorkman's CV
'M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 35 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations worldwide. Mr Bjorkman has been a delegate to the IMO for various national administrations and one NGO and has been a speaker at various Safety at Sea conferences. Mr Bjorkman holds several patents concerned with ship safety.'
Tanker and Ferry design, not steelframe building construction
Tanker and Ferry design, not explosive demolition
Tanker and Ferry design, not military research into nanothermites
None of the areas Heiwa is haunting are related to his expertise........I guess this is just a coincidence?
Just asking questions!
You really, really don't want to dig too deep into Heiwa's CV
It claims "several" patents, but lists only one.
Emails I sent to the journals where he claims to have published result in ... er ... well, you wouldn't want to put their comments in your CV.
He was refused entry prior to at least one of those conferences he lists, by his own admission. Tracking others results in only self-referential Heiwaco stuff.
When you make 100 insurance adjustments in one year, what could you be investigating exactly? Quayside scrapes? Minor galley fires? Certainly not in-depth engineering investigation of serious mishaps.
His "European Agency for Safety at Sea" is illegally named and does not live under the EU umbrella. The EU told me so. Heiwa refuses to alter the name or remove the EU logo.
He is a fraud.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
You really, really don't want to dig too deep into Heiwa's CV
It claims "several" patents, but lists only one.
Emails I sent to the journals where he claims to have published result in ... er ... well, you wouldn't want to put their comments in your CV.
He was refused entry prior to at least one of those conferences he lists, by his own admission. Tracking others results in only self-referential Heiwaco stuff.
When you make 100 insurance adjustments in one year, what could you be investigating exactly? Quayside scrapes? Minor galley fires? Certainly not in-depth engineering investigation of serious mishaps.
His "European Agency for Safety at Sea" is illegally named and does not live under the EU umbrella. The EU told me so. Heiwa refuses to alter the name or remove the EU logo.
He is a fraud.
I find it very difficult to believe that Heiwa would misrepresent anything....(dripping sarcasm)
You are dishonest and obtuse. You have run from every concrete question I have put to you. I raise very specific points and you either respond with stupid insults or you ignore me. Here is a sampling of the concrete issues you avoid like the plague:
Your insane movement has been wrong about all of its predictions. What does that say about the premises it argues from?
Your muddle-headed guru contends, absurdly, that only the bottom one of thirteen collapsing floors hits the floor immediately below. The top twelve floors float harmlessly in midair, through some form of magic. Where does the mass of these twelve top floors go exactly? Why don't they add to the momentum with which the lowest falling floor hits the next one in line?
No evidence whatever for demolition was ever discovered anywhere in the WTC complex. You remain blind to the bankruptcy of your agenda-driven myths. What compels you to cling so desperately to beliefs that have been exposed as false on so many levels?
You posit a gigantic conspiracy whose members derived enormous benefits from America's invasion of Afghanistan. Who are these people and what could they possibly have gained?
So, how does the collapse of WTC 7 fit into your imaginary conspiracy's scheme to conquer the world?
Was any money actually missing from the Pentagon?
Bill, I can, as you know, keep going and going. But, you're going to run away again, aren't you? Here's my input. You've heard the questions before. You've never come close to a serious attempt at addressing them. Will this time be any different.
Or the other way around! All observations and calculations show after proper analysis that a one-way crush down is not possible. So I made an axiom out of it. Purpose of this thread is to discuss the result in a friendly and lively way.
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
Tell me about it. sheeez I couldn't have said that better myself. Thank You.
Well, read the link in post #1 and try to debunk it. It is the famous Ryan Mackey model, where Mackey suggests that upper part C one-way crushes lower part A ... but Mackey cannot explain why! Of course the model is modified a little. Upper part C is not one mass M as suggested by Mackey but 14 small masses m, which is more realistic. And then upper part C cannot possibly one-way crush down part A only assisted by gravity.
If you believe otherwise, you are kindly requested to demonstrate that.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
We do not believe that a one-way crush down of a structure by one tenth of itself is possible using gravity alone. It has never happened in the entire world history of construction on the Planet Earth and nobody is able to reproduce a similar event. Empirically that says that our claim is not far fetched at all. On the ontrary it says that your claim is wildly far fetched.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
You may want to avoid using words you don't know the meaning of.
An axiom is something that is assumed to be true without proof, because it is self-evident. If it was arrived at by observations and calculations, then it is a theorem or a theory.
This really doesn't help your case.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Even if God doesn't exist, this thread is enough to make him spontaneously pop into existence and roll his eyes.
- Status