The Heiwa Challenge

[Newtons Bit]

LOL, you are quote mining so that you can misrepresent what I said, just like you did with Heiwa on this particular topic..

Had you quoted the very next paragraph of mine you will see that your attempt to misrepresent what I said falls apart completely, here...



This is perfect proof of the dishonesty of the JREF cult!

So your entire argument is based upon your own definition of "crush down"?

Swell.

 

[DavidJames]

You aren't qualified to make this assessment.



Nope....

You aren't qualified Bill.

Of course you are correct. After seeing his troubles in this thread, I may need to reassess my opinion of him.

Edited by Locknar: 

Breach of Rule 12 content removed.

 

[SteveAustin]

So your entire argument is based upon your own definition of "crush down"?

Swell.

What's your definition of "crush down". My definition fits with the standard definition;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crush

crush
2 entries found.

1crush (verb)

2crush (noun)

Main Entry: 1crush
Pronunciation: \ˈkrəsh\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English crusshen, from Anglo-French croissir, croistre, of Germanic origin; akin to Middle Low German krossen to crush
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 a : to squeeze or force by pressure so as to alter or destroy structure <crush grapes> b : to squeeze together into a mass
3 : to reduce to particles by pounding or grinding <crush rock>
4 a : to suppress or overwhelm as if by pressure or weight b : to oppress or burden grievously <crushed by debt> c : to subdue completely


So again, what's your definition of "crush down"?

 

[SteveAustin]

You aren't qualified to make this assessment.



Nope....

You aren't qualified Bill.

That's another one of the fallacies that keeps getting promoted here at JREF.

The fallacy of the need to have specific degrees to be able to understand 9/11.

The events of 9/11, even the science behind 9/11 is not really very complicated, but by constantly saying that it is and that you need to be qualified you keep certain people from using their own commen sense and their own critical thinking.

An offshoot of this, and it usually goes hand in hand with labeling something too scientific for the laymen is to make explanations really really complicated so as to obfuscate the entire topic and make it look like it truly is too complicated, but when broken down and studied it turns out it really is simple.

You do not need any speciality in any field to undersand that 9/11 was an inside job, but it helps the agenda of the deniers to pretend that you do.

Anyone that tells you that you are not smart enough or qualified enough to be able to figure these things out on your own is trying to hide something from you.

It's the classic "I am smarter than you are so I am an 'expert' and you need to listen to me, listen to what I say because I know and you cannnot possibly know"

 

[newton3376]

Of course you are correct. After seeing his troubles in this thread, I may need to reassess my opinion of him. I had viewed him as a troll but I'm now wondering if there isn't a deeper learning disability going on.

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's another one of the fallacies that keeps getting promoted here at JREF.

The fallacy of the need to have specific degrees to be able to understand 9/11.

There was no claim made on this basis. The concept is simple; if you spout idiotic nonsense that is incompatible with what is known in the subject you're discussing then you're not qualified to comment on it. No fallacy was committed.

This has nothing to do with smarts, but everything to do with incompetents spouting off there ignorance in a subject for which they've done no personal study or any professional experience with. You are a textbook example

 

[SteveAustin]

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

Another one trying to tell everyone to shut up and listen to your betters. "We know the truth of these matters, they are simply too complicated for you little brains. So shut up and listen!!"

ROFL, I am not some mindless zombies who is stuck in front of the TV 6 hours a day!

I understand that JREF purposely makes things far more complicated than they really are in order to obfuscate the issue and make the lazy and non-critical thinkers simply go along with so-called "experts"

 

[Heiwa]

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

This popular thread is not about shut up and listen but to be creative and design a structure that can one-way crush itself as outlined in post #1. So far nobody as managed it. I know why, of course. Please, speak up and explain why it is so and I will listen.

 

[bill smith]

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

Pretend that the following is NOT a model of the WTC but just a contraption of spaghetti. If an engineer told you that picking up the top 10% of this model and dropping it a short distance into the other 90% would result in the whole thing being crushed down onto the floor- would you believe him ?

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.''

 

[nicepants]

ROFL, that is a very dishonest question. The reason it is dishonest is because you are asking this question to cover the truth of the facts.

There was nothing dishonest about my question. It doesn't "cover the truth" about anything.

How did you determine which "path" has the least resistance?

The path of least resistance is to fall off the building, fall away and to the sides.

The path of greatest resistance is to fall straight down through those many many thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

Resistance to what?
In what units is this resistance measured?

Tell me, does the top section remain intact through the entire explosive collapse to the ground? Or does it break up into many many smaller pieces that could then easily tumble away over the side through the path of least resistance?

Due to your qualifying statement (which I have italicized) your question is a false dichotomy.

 

[beachnut]

...
I understand that JREF purposely makes things far more complicated than they really are in order to obfuscate the issue and make the lazy and non-critical thinkers simply go along with so-called "experts"

I agree you are not a zombie, you are a delusion repeater with the false flag vandalism as your original thought on an area related to 911.

Oh YES! JREF makes calculus much more complicated than it really is.
JREF makes physics much more complicated than it is!
JREF makes nonlinear differential equations much more difficult than they really are.
JREF makes stochastic estimation and control much more complicated than it really is.
And JREF makes structural engineering much more complicated than it is.

But you BillSmith and Heiwa just use delusional talk to simplify physics and structural engineering to "whatever you say is true", as you make up delusions based on your failed moronic opinions instead of real engineering. You can't show your work because you have not done the work.

Your posts are so anti-intellectual you are the perfect cheerleader for Heiwa's no calculation axiom; Heiwa used the "if I say it is so it is so" method of proof - Fetzer's Delusional proof method.

 

[bill smith]

A 'false dichotomy' ? Hmmm.....are you sure it's not a 'logical fallacy' or 'an appeal to this. that or the other ' ? One of those debunker soundbites anyway ?

 

[newton3376]

That's another one of the fallacies that keeps getting promoted here at JREF.

It's not a fallacy at all....

The fallacy of the need to have specific degrees to be able to understand 9/11.

A few points...

Degrees do not always imply the ability to understand something, but they are usually a good indicator of at least a basic understanding of principles (like math and physics for example).

I have worked with and currently work with other engineers and scientists that have everything from a Bachelors degree to 2 or more PhDs.... I have met some individuals with Bachelors degrees who were smarter than the guys with the PhDs...maybe not more knowledgable, but smarter in terms of raw intelligence.

So are degrees everything? No, of course not...

BUT

Having a degree does imply a certain level of competence in a particular subject, and usually the more advanced degrees require more time, experience, and knowledge...

....but a degree is just the beginning....

Then there is EXPERIENCE. Experience working on various projects in the real world, which is an education in and of itself. The degree prepares you for the real education of actually working in the engineering or science fields in real life....

The combination of education and experience is what makes up someones background in the subject.

Of course, since you don't have either you find what I am saying to be either fallicious or offensive..... no surprise there.

The events of 9/11, even the science behind 9/11 is not really very complicated, but by constantly saying that it is and that you need to be qualified you keep certain people from using their own commen sense and their own critical thinking.

The events of 9/11 were very complicated on several levels....

Unqualified people always cry and complain about "common sense" while not using it themselves. It's deliciously ironic.

9/11 involves the engineering community, the intelligence community, the military, the defense department, the defense contractors, first responders, etc....and the vast majority of experts and people working in these fields are not truthers.

Truthers try to simplify 9/11 by using models of the WTC made out of fruit and legos.....the fact that you can't see why this is a problem tells me you are unqualified to even have an opinon.

You know who usually whines about a lack of education and experience? Those who haven't bothered to spend the time getting either.

An offshoot of this, and it usually goes hand in hand with labeling something too scientific for the laymen is to make explanations really really complicated so as to obfuscate the entire topic and make it look like it truly is too complicated, but when broken down and studied it turns out it really is simple.

From my experience (theres that word again) topics in engineering and science are rarely "simple". There are levels and layers to understanding something, so there is certainly a level or layer that is "simple" or has a simplistic explanation or analogy....but the devil is in the details.

And the details is usually where the actual math, physics, and engineering can be found.....this is where people who are unqualified and don't understand the math, physics, or engineering start to cry and complain...

"It's too hard!!!" "You're making it too complicated!!!"

Sorry if you don't get it...that's life. Deal with it and stop complaining. It isn't my fault you didn't get a degree in engineering or read enough math and physics on your own to "get it"...

It also isn't my fault that you have zero years of engineering experience.

You do not need any speciality in any field to undersand that 9/11 was an inside job, but it helps the agenda of the deniers to pretend that you do.

Sorry, you don't have the education or experience in the relevant areas to determine whether or not 9/11 was an inside job.

Maybe you should just listen to the experts instead of your own uninformed and uneducated ideas.....

Anyone that tells you that you are not smart enough or qualified enough to be able to figure these things out on your own is trying to hide something from you.

As painful as it might be to admit....it is a fact of life that some people are simply smarter or better in specific areas than other people.

And sometimes someone is just plain smarter overall than someone else. Some people are more intelligent than others.... Sorry if that bothers you, but it's life.

So yes, some people are not smart enough or qualified enough to figure these things out on there own....if you don't like that, it's not my problem. It's the way reality is. Deal with it.

It's the classic "I am smarter than you are so I am an 'expert' and you need to listen to me, listen to what I say because I know and you cannnot possibly know"

The experts are smarter than you because they have both the education and experience in the relevant areas. You don't.

I'm sorry if this is some kind of a personal issue with you....go get a degree and start getting some relevant experience if it bothers you so much.

But until you do....

You aren't qualified.

 

[newton3376]

Another one trying to tell everyone to shut up and listen to your betters. "We know the truth of these matters, they are simply too complicated for you little brains. So shut up and listen!!"

Not everyone....

You? Yes. Everyone? No.

ROFL, I am not some mindless zombies who is stuck in front of the TV 6 hours a day!

You are an investigoogler.

I understand that JREF purposely makes things far more complicated than they really are in order to obfuscate the issue and make the lazy and non-critical thinkers simply go along with so-called "experts"

You aren't qualified to make such a judgement.

 

[newton3376]

This popular thread is not about shut up and listen but to be creative and design a structure that can one-way crush itself as outlined in post #1. So far nobody as managed it. I know why, of course. Please, speak up and explain why it is so and I will listen.

Your nonsense has already been answered but you apparently lack the ability to understand despite your supposed degree....

Your world is lemons and cardboard....leave the structural engineering questions to the structural engineers.

 

[newton3376]

Pretend that the following is NOT a model of the WTC but just a contraption of spaghetti. If an engineer told you that picking up the top 10% of this model and dropping it a short distance into the other 90% would result in the whole thing being crushed down onto the floor- would you believe him ?

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.''

Bill....

If an engineer told me to model a building collapse with spaghetti, lemons, or any other fruit, appetizer, dessert, or entre I would tell him to stop playing with his food.

And I would tell him he was a moron

 

[twinstead]

Personally, I think SteveAustin, Heiwa, Bill smith, and others are obfuscating the issue by claiming that anybody with a computer and access to YouTube and google is as qualified as any expert to decide if the collapses were CD, that this is all about "common sense".

As if somehow I, as a layman, am supposed to believe them when they tell me the collapses were impossible the way they are described by the NIST, Purdue, etc and ignore any experts who disagree.

Hmmmm. Well, truthers, you want to dazzle this layman? Get the ASCE to endorse your cause. Find some REAL experts to claim that the collapses were impossible. You can claim till the cows come home that it's so obvious that anybody can see it, but regardless of your disdain for experts, until some pretty important ones get on your side I could care less about your delightful little movement.

Your whining about "experts" is all an attempt at covering up the fact you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Heiwa]

Personally, I think SteveAustin, Heiwa, Bill smith, and others are obfuscating the issue by claiming that anybody with a computer and access to YouTube and google is as qualified as any expert to decide if the collapses were CD, that this is all about "common sense".

As if somehow I, as a layman, am supposed to believe them when they tell me the collapses were impossible the way they are described by the NIST, Purdue, etc and ignore any experts who disagree.

Hmmmm. Well, truthers, you want to dazzle this layman? Get the ASCE to endorse your cause. Find some REAL experts to claim that the collapses were impossible. You can claim till the cows come home that it's so obvious that anybody can see it, but regardless of your disdain for experts, until some pretty important ones get on your side I could care less about your delightful little movement.

Your whining about "experts" is all an attempt at covering up the fact you don't know what you are talking about.

The Heiwa Challenge is open to any ASCE member/expert and NIST/Purdue employé. ASCE/NIST have no info about structures that self-destruct when a part of a structure drops on the remainder of the structure. Isn't it time to provide info of such dangerous structures? Any such structure will win The Heiwa Challenge!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Isn't it time to provide info of such dangerous structures?

Measures to protect the buildings are usually already in place to prevent it. They can't do anything about it when the collapse has already started.

 

[beachnut]

The Heiwa Challenge is open to any ASCE member/expert and NIST/Purdue employé. ASCE/NIST have no info about structures that self-destruct when a part of a structure drops on the remainder of the structure. Isn't it time to provide info of such dangerous structures? Any such structure will win The Heiwa Challenge!

The one million dollars you lied about? Called fraud, you are a perfect fit with Gage's failed group.