29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[beachnut]

According the Björkman axiom part C cannot one-way crush down or collapse part A. And local failures between parts A and C have even less possibility to produce a one-way crush down. So the conclusion is that the collapse is, e.g. controlled demolition.

A delusional axiom with a moronic conclusions based on nothing but failed opinions, fantasy, and lies. Best part you have zero calculations to back up your delusion. Like the OP 29 people with delusions; are you one of the 29 or are there 30 now with the same failed delusion?

 

[twinstead]

All done and described in my papers. Just read them.

Big part B (the entire mass of the top of the building) crushes small part A (the single floor directly below it) until there are no more A's.

 

[Bluesky]

Heiwa applies sweeping generalizations to all forms of construction. Anyone who has performed a case study should immediately know the implications of such an absurd set of statements. Buildings vary in construction and material and they each perform very differently based on the choices architects and engineers make in the design stages of construction.

In my educated opinion, trying to explain the concept to him when he himself doesn't understand it in the first place is wholly pointless. And on top of that he's one of the 29 individuals on the AE911 listing spoken about in the OP... it says volumes about the standards of the group

Yes I completely agree. And I just made a mistake by responding to him which was pointless. He clearly has nothing more to offer the debate. I was trying to find out how the ae911tm would respond to the Balzac-Vitry demolition where so much is what they would describe as "unexpected". From my perspective it is a very good example of how local damage can lead to global collapse.

Heiwa is a good reflection of the quality of the 29 "experts" that the ae911truth movement have. These expert include, by their own declaration, the following "expertise":
- a road engineer
- "I graduated in 2007"
- someone who "nearly" got a masters
- "none provided"
- "I am working as a junior engineer"

It is not really worth trying to engage in a discussion with them.
The ae911tm do not want to discuss how they falsely claim expertise that they do not have. They only want to discuss a few small isolated aspects of each collapse. And then they simply regurgitate the same old nonsense, like Heiwa's mantra. What they are saying makes no sense, but as a series of sound-bites they are bound to keep attracting a few zealots, a few people who can't be bothered to read the details, a few contrarians and a few anti government people.

But they will never attract any of the world's leading tall building engineers. None of the top 1,000, from any country in the world. And the most effective response from the world's leading engineers is to ignore them. The ae911tm seek controversy, seek attention and want money. They are not interested in truth. So any debate with them is only serving their purpose, and so its pointless, including this one.

 

[deep]

But they will never attract any of the world's leading tall building engineers. None of the top 1,000, from any country in the world.

How do you know who is in the top 1,000 at any given time? Is there a list published somewhere?

 

[beachnut]

How do you know who is in the top 1,000 at any given time? Is there a list published somewhere?

So simple, go engage the top structural engineers in the world and ask them to explain why they disagree with your delusions on 911. Simple stuff all you have to do is do it. You will not discuss 911 with people they will call your ideas nuts, save a few conspiracy minded people who share your same shallow research derived moronic conclusions.

 

[Bluesky]

How do you know who is in the top 1,000 at any given time? Is there a list published somewhere?

I agree with Beachnut. You could engage with them

..Or you could assume that anyone who was the lead engineer of a building over 40 stories is probably in the top 1,000. ( Not just one of the team )

..Or you could ask the CTBUH, ( Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat ) who know these things. They have hundreds of thousands of members and have formally said they think CD is nonsense.

But I do not think that anyone of the ae911tm experts would qualify in the top 100,000.

 

[tfk]

Big part B (the entire mass of the building above the collapse initiation with mass added by each little part A it crushes) crushes little part A (only the floor just below the collapse front) and repeats until there are no more part A's. So, the conclusion is that you don't know what you're talking about.

.
Twinstead,

Su-weeeet.

"Anders Bjorkman mystefied by Bjorkman's Axiom".

Perfect.

Of course, no other competent engineers in the world would be mystified by it. If they'd ever heard about it.

They'd find it somewhat amusing. And completely wrong.

Anders (Heiwa) knows this. It is precisely why he refuses to debate the issues with me. Or with Mackey. Or with Newton. Or with any of the competent engineers here.

"Fear. Eet eeess a French theeng."

Tom

 

[FineWine]

All done and described in my papers. Just read them.

Your papers are worthless rubbish. The collapsing floors are THE BIG PART, Heiwa. You can run, but you can't hide.