RFC: Bazant and Zhou Simple Analysis refuted

Lest there remain any confusion....

Heiwa said:
Nutty! Now I understand why you believe planes actually hit the towers in the first place. You have watched too much television.
Click to expand...


...just refer to quotations from Chairman Heiwa's Little Red Book on 9/11:

There is clear (negative) evidence that no hijacked airplanes were involved in 911:
...
Conclusions (based on negative evidence):

A. The alleged hijacked planes did not crash at the various sites.
B. Whatever caused damage at the various crash sites was not a hijacked airplane.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2406?page=1


"But it is OT. Topic is WTC1 design, construction and strength to resist collapse. WTC 1 resisted a plane crash. It resisted a big fire. Then the fire got smaller."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3287741&postcount=139


"The evidence for my 'theory' is there for anybody to watch on the videos. I doubt there is any testimony of people to the contrary."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3301945&postcount=168


"This is clear from the initial hole caused by the plane. In that case the mass above is carried by the intact bars around the hole in the wall and at the core and no potential energy was released."
http://www.flashback.info/showpost.php?p=9354844&postcount=7362


9/11/01 I was at Freiberg, Saxony, Germany. My daughter called and asked me to watch TV news. But we had no TV in our old house built 1590 ca. Only later I had the opportunity to watch the 911 crash sites on video.


"And it was quite evident to me that due to lack of any airplane wreckage anywhere that no airplanes ever caused the incidents. Furthermore - the structural damages at WTC and Pentagon and the hole in the ground at Pennsylvania cannot have been caused by airplanes for more reasons than that there are no airplane wreckage parts anywhere."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2406#comment-64389


"You ask: What moments are developed in the exterior columns due to adjacent columns failing? Answer - look at the hole in the wall after the plane impact."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3287270&postcount=110
Click to expand...
Any questions, class?
 
Last edited:
bje said:
...just refer to quotations from Chairman Heiwa's Little Red Book on 9/11:


Any questions, class?
Click to expand...

You better study my article again. I have added some links and ... BTW. No plane hit WTC1 and started the fire. Quite obvious, actually, even if not the topic of it. But it makes sense.

No plane hit WTC1, so fire was started by other means. One purpose was to knock out the cables to the television mast on the roof, so that local NY TV companies could not transmit the 'show' that followed. Only the five big ones, sharing the same control room, transmitted the 'show'. Hollywood live.

So if no plane hit WTC1 and only damage was externally due to - you know, I am sure that the core columns were not damaged at all.

And that explains the strange release of potential energy that followed, etc. according Nist.

There was no release of potential energy. Quite clear from the article, and we now know why.

Thanks for your assistance.

You can now apply for jobs as prison guards at the concentration camps being opened this summer all over USA.
 
Heiwa said:
You better study my article again. I have added some links and ... BTW. No plane hit WTC1 and started the fire. Quite obvious, actually, even if not the topic of it. But it makes sense.

No plane hit WTC1, so fire was started by other means. One purpose was to knock out the cables to the television mast on the roof, so that local NY TV companies could not transmit the 'show' that followed. Only the five big ones, sharing the same control room, transmitted the 'show'. Hollywood live.

So if no plane hit WTC1 and only damage was externally due to - you know, I am sure that the core columns were not damaged at all.

And that explains the strange release of potential energy that followed, etc. according Nist.

There was no release of potential energy. Quite clear from the article, and we now know why.

Thanks for your assistance.

You can now apply for jobs as prison guards at the concentration camps being opened this summer all over USA.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that only happens in Europe, our concentration camps, like our torture are a joke. Camp Grenada is our only concentration camp and it was exposed years ago, when I was a kid.

No plane, guess the people who saw the plane, and the radar track are Wrong? You ideas are pure nuts! NUTS, the 101 used that with the Germans in 1944, and it fits with your ideas. NUTS, bye bye
 
Heiwa, I've spent time in Beausoleil. I stayed at the home of the harbor master for a few days.* The sun is indeed very nice there. But it can be very strong. Perhaps you should stay out of it.



*edit: I have spent time in Beausoleil, but the harbor master was in Villefranche, just down the road. Same sun, though.

edit 2: Oh, you're back to no planes? Buh-bye, and good luck with your troubles.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Heiwa, I've spent time in Beausoleil. I stayed at the home of the harbor master for a few days.* The sun is indeed very nice there. But it can be very strong. Perhaps you should stay out of it.



*edit: I have spent time in Beausoleil, but the harbor master was in Villefranche, just down the road. Same sun, though.

edit 2: Oh, you're back to no planes? Buh-bye, and good luck with your troubles.
Click to expand...

Well Mark, I visited your web site and looked at your video and noted that most people rated it and your ideas zero. So maybe you spent too much time in the sun? So look for that job as a camp guard.
 
Heiwa said:
Well Mark, I visited your web site and looked at your video and noted that most people rated it and your ideas zero. So maybe you spent too much time in the sun? So look for that job as a camp guard.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, the number of idiots who post comments on sites like the one that host's gravy's video is meaningless. Frankly if you can't even convince US that you have a clue, how do you expect to convince somebody who can actually DO something about a new investigation or an indictment of the government you are SO sure is responsible for 911?

In other words, how many people who really know what they are talking about need to call your theory idiotic before you actually start questioning it yourself?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
You better study my article again. I have added some links and ... BTW. No plane hit WTC1 and started the fire. Quite obvious, actually, even if not the topic of it. But it makes sense.

No plane hit WTC1, so fire was started by other means. One purpose was to knock out the cables to the television mast on the roof, so that local NY TV companies could not transmit the 'show' that followed. Only the five big ones, sharing the same control room, transmitted the 'show'. Hollywood live.

So if no plane hit WTC1 and only damage was externally due to - you know, I am sure that the core columns were not damaged at all.

And that explains the strange release of potential energy that followed, etc. according Nist.

There was no release of potential energy. Quite clear from the article, and we now know why.

Thanks for your assistance.

You can now apply for jobs as prison guards at the concentration camps being opened this summer all over USA.
Click to expand...


Saying no plane hit WTC1 is contradicting reality. You must provide proof of this assertion that is more compelling than previous attempts on this forum (attempts which have failed miserably).

Mere joking about concentration camps is insufficient. Proof that the multitude of witnesses plus the video evidence is incorrect is necessary.
 
Heiwa said:
You better study my article again...No plane hit WTC1 and started the fire. Quite obvious, actually,...

No plane hit WTC1, so fire was started by other means.
Click to expand...


And your new revision states for all to see:

"The Towers also survived the initial impacts of planes on 911 due to their redundancy."
Click to expand...

Another day, another story....
 
Heiwa said:
. BTW. No plane hit WTC1 and started the fire.
No plane hit WTC1, so fire was started by other means.
Click to expand...
Thanks for stepping out of the closet and exposing your insanity for all to see. I think the world at large is done with you now. have fun. Hope this tidbit you shared doesn't sink your little boat business.
One purpose was to knock out the cables to the television mast on the roof, so that local NY TV companies could not transmit the 'show' that followed. Only the five big ones, sharing the same control room, transmitted the 'show'. Hollywood live.
Click to expand...


I guess you are not aware that there are back up transmitters uptown on top of the Empire State Building, Perhaps you have heard of it? It was the tallest building in the world before the WTC towers were built.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
Thanks for stepping out of the closet and exposing your insanity for all to see. I think the world at large is done with you now. have fun. Hope this tidbit you shared doesn't sink your little boat business.


I guess you are not aware that there are back up transmitters uptown on top of the Empire State Building, Perhaps you have heard of it? It was the tallest building in the world before the WTC towers were built.
Click to expand...

All my facts are in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and particularly in the second part http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm . No closet there!

Even if my paper is about the preposterous cause and effect proposed by Nist of the WTC1 collapse, it is of course of interest to look at the evidence of the events that lead up to that cause and the effect, e.g. the origin of the fire in WTC1. And it seems that there is only one video that captured that moment and according to the link in my paper that video is not genuine.

Or, it is quite good, but tampered with. But it shows that the fire didn't start only at the initiation zone but also much higher up ... just below the antenna.

So the WTC1 antenna didn't function and only five major networks followed what happened later. Apparently the ESB antenna didn't switch on for other networks to document the crime?

And if you study another link in my paper you find that those five major networks produced 'live' a lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense. So just study my paper and comment on that. Please.

My business is of course safety at sea (including their steel structures), but I can apparently learn a lot from safety in office towers and how poorly US authorities investigate those, particularly 911. Or vice versa, people interested in safety in office towers can learn from what happens at sea, where everything happens. Lots of pirates around that sink ships intentionally for various reasons ... and most of these pirates are actually sitting ashore in office towers. It's a small world.

So my business is doing well, thank you. It will never sink because it is based on good ground and on common sense.

Sometimes I wonder what many clowns on this thread are working to achieve. To become camp guards in gUSlag? That is quite insane!
 
Heiwa said:
All my facts are in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and particularly in the second part http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm . No closet there!

Even if my paper is about the preposterous cause and effect proposed by Nist of the WTC1 collapse, it is of course of interest to look at the evidence of the events that lead up to that cause and the effect, e.g. the origin of the fire in WTC1. And it seems that there is only one video that captured that moment and according to the link in my paper that video is not genuine.

Or, it is quite good, but tampered with. But it shows that the fire didn't start only at the initiation zone but also much higher up ... just below the antenna.

So the WTC1 antenna didn't function and only five major networks followed what happened later. Apparently the ESB antenna didn't switch on for other networks to document the crime?

And if you study another link in my paper you find that those five major networks produced 'live' a lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense. So just study my paper and comment on that. Please.

My business is of course safety at sea (including their steel structures), but I can apparently learn a lot from safety in office towers and how poorly US authorities investigate those, particularly 911. Or vice versa, people interested in safety in office towers can learn from what happens at sea, where everything happens. Lots of pirates around that sink ships intentionally for various reasons ... and most of these pirates are actually sitting ashore in office towers. It's a small world.

So my business is doing well, thank you. It will never sink because it is based on good ground and on common sense.

Sometimes I wonder what many clowns on this thread are working to achieve. To become camp guards in gUSlag? That is quite insane!
Click to expand...
Seek Help
 
DGM said:
Seek Help
Click to expand...

Don't need any. My facts are quite good. Maybe you need some help yourself? Too much television? Lack of sun? Drugs. Or just normal confusion?
A good medicin! Read my paper! Like thousand have. All cured.
 
Heiwa said:
Model planes! Or similar. Use your imagination.
Click to expand...

Don't need to use my imagination, Heiwa. Like you wrote, REAL planes hit WTC 1 and 2. (AA 11 and UA 175, to be precise)
 
Heiwa, you have stated several times you calculated various things.

Do you mind showing your work here?

Also, for some reason you now stating that "no planes" hit the building, yet you state that very thing in your paper.

Can you explain how numerous videos, photos, and people on the ground saw exactly what was transmitted by your "big five" networks?

I looked at your paper, and didn't see anything that has not been explained/debunked by others.

One thing that pops out is your "birdcage" analogy. You over simplified the towers construction, and I can't see where a birdcage, on fire, would respond like the towers did on that day.


BTW - the towers construction was not at all common. Buildings were not built like that.

so you can't compare what would happen to other buildings to what happened to the wtc. unless you take in account these differences - which you haven't shown.
 
Heiwa said:
Don't need any. My facts are quite good. Maybe you need some help yourself? Too much television? Lack of sun? Drugs. Or just normal confusion?
A good medicin! Read my paper! Like thousand have. All cured.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint: If you are crazy, you may not actually REALIZE it. The only clue you may get is pretty much everybody who knows what they are talking about tells you exactly that and even calmly shows you WHY.

All your responses to the people who are trying to bring a little reality into your world are exactly what somebody who needs help would say if they actually DID need help but didn't realize it.

It's okay. We understand.
 
Heiwa said:
All my facts are in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and particularly in the second part http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm . No closet there!

Sometimes I wonder what many clowns on this thread are working to achieve. To become camp guards in gUSlag? That is quite insane!
Click to expand...
If you business was like your paper, you would be out of business. Sad to see, your ability to do well in business does not make you a rational person on 9/11 and other CT ideas.

Bad paper, good business. Who would guess?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom