• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
mark4mark said:
Oh...my...
And he presented it...here?! Doesn't he claim to be an engineer?
Click to expand...
oh yeah. the hits they keep on coming

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home


We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:
​
Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again. However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of lemons.
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.



Hes like a Frankenstein with avaitors trying to conduct physics experiments
HeiwaAndersBjorkmanae911truth-full;init:.jpg



http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=40709145
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
oh yeah. the hits they keep on coming

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home


We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:
​
Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again. However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of lemons.
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.



Hes like a Frankenstein with avaitors trying to conduct physics experiments
[qimg]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaAndersBjorkmanae911truth.jpg/HeiwaAndersBjorkmanae911truth-full;init:.jpg[/qimg]


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=40709145
Click to expand...


That's quite the list you've got going...
 
Say what you will about Heiwa, he looks pretty good for a guy with 40 years experience in steel structural design and structural damage analysis. Especially one that eats pizza and drinks lemonade in front of a CRT screen all day.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Say what you will about Heiwa, he looks pretty good for a guy with 40 years experience in steel structural design and structural damage analysis. Especially one that eats pizza and drinks lemonade in front of a CRT screen all day.
Click to expand...

Hey. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying like that. I would bet the man has an LCD screen.
 
Originally Posted by bill smith
"Heiwa has an international reputation"
As an ill-informed,ill-educated troofer?
 
dafydd said:
Originally Posted by bill smith
"Heiwa has an international reputation"
As an ill-informed,ill-educated troofer?
Click to expand...

No, as a one-time maritime insurance assessor who graduated to ship's welding and now claiming to run the unrecognised "European Agency for Safety at Sea", while having marine safety articles rejected by respected journals as "probably libellous". Oh ... yes ... you were right. Sorry.
 
twinstead said:
Hey. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying like that. I would bet the man has an LCD screen.
Click to expand...

I just assumed the radiation from a CRT was responsible for his... way of thinking.

@oz- it's scientific fact teddy bears absorb radiation so no worries.
 
Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.
 
RedIbis said:
Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.
Click to expand...


Do you really believe that's what happened on 9/11?
 
RedIbis said:
Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.
Click to expand...

No progress, you keep talking about crushing when the rest of us are talking about progressive collapse or cascade failure.
 
RedIbis said:
Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.
Click to expand...

Red, do you imagine that the rest of this thread simply went away?

Why are you asking the same thing that was answered pages ago?

 
RedIbis said:
Ok, that's three more posts and no one has provided an example.
Click to expand...

I already provided a link to a 100 year old news paper article in which a single beam was being put into place, fell onto the lower and caused a progressive collapse of the entire structure. That's less than 10% causing the "crushing" of more than 90%.

You do understand what progressive means right? And collapse? That's the real issue, not Heiwa's fantasy challenge.
 
RedIbis said:
Ok, that's three more posts and no one has provided an example.
Click to expand...

Red, what the heck is wrong with you? Are you simply trying to wind people up? What is the point of restating questions and pretending they have not been answered the first time around?

What part of "this did not happen on Sept 11th" don't you understand?
 
Last edited:
You will never see the challenge met.

If NIST couldn't do it with millions of dollars, the non-toofers here don't have a chance.

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom