Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

tfk said:
.
TL,

I agree with the others. Heiwa's strange beliefs are not due to a language barrier. If it were, I'd still be really patient with him.

Like everyone else who has interacted with him for any length, I've become very disillusioned with his behavior. He has behaved in an extraordinarily dishonest manner. He promotes nonsense. When you attempt to pin him down with the simple request that he answer a couple of pointed questions, he simply ignores you. (He believes that this is amusing. Or some alpha dog tactic. Or whatever...)

I've got LOTS of patience with people who are simply wrong, but are trying to learn. (Hell, I'm a prime member of that group regularly.) Also, I taught for years, mostly in industry and, for a bit, college engineering. You learn to love seeing your "students" picking up the concepts.

But I have zero patience with someone who is dishonest in their debate.

Illustrating this point, I offered a wager on a particular point. The pot on this wager was "If he lost, he had to answer, not ignore, questions. And answer them honestly. For 2 weeks." In other words, he would have to behave, for a brief period, exactly like every other honest person on this board behaves every day.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4939790

Tellingly, he declined, and continues to decline, to make the wager.

You'll figure it out in time.


Tom
Click to expand...

he seems to act as though hes learned everything there is to learn and all others are beneath him
he seems quite closed minded and childish in his responses

trying to get through to someone like that will be close to impossible
hes not mature enough to admit he might be wrong (IMO)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Your seemingly continuous need to attempt to slur those you don't agree with makes you look pathetic Mark.
Click to expand...
It's not about agreement, it's about competence. You seem compelled to publicly trumpet your incompetence. Case in point: this thread. And despite my repeated challenges to you to show what I've gotten wrong in my statements about you, you cannot. Because I've got evidence that supports my statements. Spend some time cogitating on that, ain'tgineer.

Why don't you at least try to argue the science?
Click to expand...
I tried to, Tony. I gave you several chances to publicly embarrass this prominent debunker with your expertise. Instead, you fled from a tour guide like a bunny from a wolf. Further, you repeatedly failed to take steps that you promised to do, such as bringing your Silverstein evidence to a District Attorney, and speaking to engineers who worked on the WTC investigation. When reality intrudes on your fantasies, you cower.

Others here are doing a far better job than I could at trying to educate you, but you are sadly ineducable. You do understand that the public can read these threads, right?

Yours,
Mark "Dual Citizen" Roberts
 
tfk said:
Hey Newt,

Well, to any competent mechanical engineer or structural engineer, none of this is necessary.

I have been going into a bit of background for the folks that don't have our background & are trying to follow along.

And now we've got the latest: Heiwa's claim that columns get stronger after they buckle.

You want to take that one...?

Tom
Click to expand...

And those of us who are not mechanical or structural engineers do appreciate it.

Keep up the good work everyone.

:popcorn1
 
I notice that Gravy is resurrected so the situation must be desperate for the 911 liars' team. OK, Gravy boy, come on - show how a structure A can be one-way crushed by a part C!
 
Heiwa said:
I notice that Gravy is resurrected so the situation must be desperate for the 911 liars' team. OK, Gravy boy, come on - show how a structure A can be one-way crushed by a part C!
Click to expand...



Uh, what if he tells you what everyone else has been telling you? What if he points out that the collapsing floors, THE BIG PART, hit the floors below ONE-AT-A-TIME? Will you offer him a coherent response? What will be different this time?

It's beyond ironic, it's simply fabulous when you refer to real engineers as liars.
 
Heiwa, structure A is the single floor directly below part C, the whole of the building above the collapse initiation point.

EVEN I GET IT HEIWA.
 
Heiwa said:
I notice that Gravy is resurrected so the situation must be desperate for the 911 liars' team. OK, Gravy boy, come on - show how a structure A can be one-way crushed by a part C!
Click to expand...


You made a typically astounding statement yesterday. I commented on it (post #1547), and you ignored me. Here's what I wrote:

You really don't see how illogical it is to talk about an assembly being self-supporting. An individual vertical column either is or is not self-supporting. If columns are interconnected by horizontal beams, it makes no sense to refer to them as self-supporting. They are part of an assembly, i.e., they are not supporting themselves.

You really, truly, honest-to-god, have no idea of what I'm saying.
 
twinstead said:
Heiwa, structure A is the single floor directly below part C, the whole of the building above the collapse initiation point.

EVEN I GET IT HEIWA.
Click to expand...

He thinks the perimeter columns were self-supporting and that they should have stopped the collapse with friction. 'nuff said
 
Heiwa said:
I notice that Gravy is resurrected so the situation must be desperate for the 911 liars' team. OK, Gravy boy, come on - show how a structure A can be one-way crushed by a part C!
Click to expand...

This thread is about how "Why a one-way Crush down is not possible". Perhaps you would like to provide a mathematical and engineering basis for how, in your mind, it is not possible.

It has already been shown by many people to be possible.
 
Newtons Bit said:
This thread is about how "Why a one-way Crush down is not possible". Perhaps you would like to provide a mathematical and engineering basis for how, in your mind, it is not possible.

It has already been shown by many people to be possible.
Click to expand...

But there is no other example of a building having been crushed down by the lightest one-tenth of itself in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth Newton. Thousands and ten-thousands of years and millions and millions of buildings say that it is impossible without deliberate demolition. It has never,ever happened.

You cannot show differently using either of the two acceptable methods. Example or modelling Newton. You know why ?......because it can't be done without deliberate demolition.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
But there is no other example of a building having been crushed down by the lightest one-tenth of itself in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth Newton. Thousands and ten-thousands of years and millions and millions of buildings say that it is impossible without deliberate demolition. It has never,ever happened.

You cannot show differently using either of the two acceptable methods. Example or modelling Newton. You know why ?......because it can't be done without deliberate demolition.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a bunch of pretty qualified people around the world who disagree. I feel comfortable considering your opinion totally worthless in this matter. But thanks for playing.
 
bill smith said:
But there is no other example of a building having been crushed down by the lightest one-tenth of itself in the entire world history of construction on the planet Earth Newton.
Click to expand...

This a stupid argument....not to mention invalid.

Find me one....just ONE...example of a building of the exact same construction as the WTC that had similar sturctural damage due to an airplane and multi-floor raging fires that did NOT one way crush down.

Just one example is all I'm asking......

You have zero..but the only TWO IN HISTORY that this has ever happened to both one way crushed down.

EPIC TROOFER FAIL.
 
twinstead said:
Well, there's a bunch of pretty qualified people around the world who disagree. I feel comfortable considering your opinion totally worthless in this matter. But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Bill Smiths opinion doesn't matter to any engineer...he isn't qualified to even have an opinion.
 
twinstead said:
Well, there's a bunch of pretty qualified people around the world who disagree. I feel comfortable considering your opinion totally worthless in this matter. But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

They can disagree all they like. Until they can provide an example or a model the simple fact is that one-tenth of a structure cannot crush the other and stronger nine-tenths of the same structure down to the ground by gravity alone. It has nver been done in the history of this planet and it never will be. Isaac Newton says so. (I can repost Smith's Law if you disagree)
 
Last edited:
newton3376 said:
Find me one....just ONE...example of a building of the exact same construction as the WTC that had similar sturctural damage due to an airplane and multi-floor raging fires that did NOT one way crush down.
Click to expand...

Maybe sturctural (?) damage may produce a one-way crush down but that is not the topic of this thread - see post #1 of original thread. Try to focus on topic!
 
Heiwa said:
Maybe sturctural (?) damage may produce a one-way crush down but that is not the topic of this thread - see post #1 of original thread. Try to focus on topic!
Click to expand...
You are saying the WTC fell due to gravity and leaving BillSmith in his delusions world of thermite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom