WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

Dictator Cheney said:
99.999%?

are you in denial?
Click to expand...

no I am giving you a rough estimate of the number of people who pay enough attention to the truther crap, to actually know who the twoofer "scientists" are. Despite your assumptions, 99.999% of the world really does not give a crap about steven jones, crocket grabbe, judy wood, etc...or even know they exist.

TAM:)
 
Heiwa said:
Thanks for comments. If you read carefully you find that of the 33 000 tons (WTC1) about 10 000 tonnes (carried by two perimeter walls) are shifted outside of the building due to misalignment and cannot do much harm.
Click to expand...


You are totally incompetent to discuss engineering.




Heiwa said:
Not too difficult to understand?
Click to expand...


It certainly is too difficult for you. Although the collapses have been explained to you with painstaking thoroughness by people vastly smarter and more knowledgeable than yourself, you are incapable of learning anything.


Heiwa said:
So I just ask NIST to redo its analysis.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I find string theory hard to understand. I therefore demand that the world's top physicists rethink their work.


Heiwa said:
The ball is in its court.
Click to expand...


No, the ball was served and you missed it.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa,

I'm still waiting for an answer to my "peer" question in post #4. While you're at it, would you mind posting their professional qualifications for reviewing your "paper"?

Thank you very much.
 
Pls do not compare ppl like Hawkings with NIST nor Bazant.....
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you woudn't say that if you understood it.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that you defend Heiwa here in this thread but in your thread you assert that the towers could each be dropped with 1608 kg of cutting charges (1 floor each). Do you normally play on both sides of the fence?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
after seeing what happened to others that dared to question the NIST report, im pretty sure in the USA, most will not go public with theyr doubts.
Click to expand...



It appears as though you've been caught lying again. We can all agree that what you "saw" was precisely nothing. Tell us who questioned the NIST Report and what happened to them.

I'll get you started: the shameless charlatan David Ray Griffin published a farrago of nonsensical errors and outright falsehoods and was convincingly refuted by the NASA scientist Ryan Mackey. Mackey solicited feedback from the fantasy community and received none.

Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? Tell us more.
 
Last edited:
Sparky said:
I find it amusing that you defend Heiwa here in this thread but in your thread you assert that the towers could each be dropped with 1608 kg of cutting charges (1 floor each). Do you normally play on both sides of the fence?
Click to expand...

i did not claim it, i asked it and it was more than your number :)
 
pomeroo said:
It appears as though you've been caught lying again. We can all agree that what you "saw" was precisely nothing. Tell us who questioned the NIST Report and what happened to them.

I'll get you started: the shameless charlatan David Ray Griffin published a farrago of nonsensical errors and outright falsehoods and was convincingly refuted by the NASA scientist Ryan Mackey. Mackey solicited feedback from the fantasy community and received none.

Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? Tell us more.
Click to expand...

how much does refutations of MIC and ex MIC ppl count when you suspect the MIC?

you call me liar?
maybe, just maybe, the information i based my oppinion on was wrong, but i did sure not lie.

and btw, woudn't a real skeptic read the main book of a religion before he judges about that religion?
 
This, from someone who claims to be an engineer, is so ridiculous it is truly astonishing. When asked technical questions Heiwa replies

Heiwa said:
(2) Not understood - layman's terms, please!

(3) Ditto.
Click to expand...

This member is not an engineer in a million years.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you woudn't say that if you understood it.
Click to expand...


You are an uneducated conspiracy liar with zero interest in science. Why are you prattling about comprehension?

We'll try something childishly--in honor of Heiwa--simple: suppose I produce two blocks of solid steel, one weighing 25 lbs., the other weighing 100 lbs. I give you the choice of letting me drop the lighter one on your back from a height of five feet so that it falls squarely on top of you, or dropping the heavier one from the same height so that only one-quarter of it actually hits you. You are saying that you are indifferent, right? It doesn't matter to you?

Try again: a structure can withstand a object weighing up to 300 lbs. falling from a specified height. We drop an object weighing 250 lbs. from that height squarely on top of it. We agree that the structure is built to withstand the impact. Next, we drop an object weighing 1,000 lbs. so that only 25% of it hits the structure. It's the same thing, right? The structure can withstand the heavier object because it's being hit by only a quarter of the 1,000 lbs., right?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
Pls do not compare ppl like Hawkings with NIST nor Bazant.....
Click to expand...

I'll agree, Hawkings is in a league all his own. That said, in a similar fashion, there is no comparison between the truther science quacks, and the exceedingly qualified and competent scientists of NIST or Dr. Bazant.

TAM:)
 
DC, play along with me for a minute.

Let's assume that the towers were felled by 1908 kg of strategically placed RDX cutting charges on a single floor of each of the towers resulting in the progressive collapse of both buildings per your arguments in the other thread.

Wouldn't that directly contradict Heiwa's assertion here in this thread that the collapse would be arrested by the lower floors? Yet you defend him here.

What's the purpose? You can't simultaneously back both both arguments. What are you trying to prove?
 
pomeroo said:
You are an uneducated conspiracy liar with zero interest in science. Why are you prattling about comprehension?

We'll try something childishly--in honor of Heiwa--simple: suppose I produce two blocks of solid steel, one weighing 25 lbs., the other weighing 100 lbs. I give you the choice of letting me drop the lighter one on your back from a height of five feet so that it falls squarely on top of you, or dropping the heavier one from the same height so that only one-quarter of it actually hits you. You are saying that you are indifferent, right? It doesn't matter to you?

Try again: a structure can withstand a object weighing up to 300 lbs. falling from a specified height. We drop an object weighing 250 lbs. from that height squarely on top of it. We agree that the structure is built to withstand the impact. Next, we drop an object weighing 1,000 lbs. so that only 25% of it hits the structure. It's the same thing, right? The structure can withstand the heavier object because it's being hit by only a quarter of the 1,000 lbs., right?
Click to expand...

well then i am a 110 LBS solid steel block.

your writings remember me on Judy Woods. the towers was like a tree......
the towers was not solid.

but thx that you confirmed that you didnt understand it.
a shame, its writen in laymanterms very simple, good understandable.
 
pomeroo said:
Kevin Ryan is a complete fraud. He foolishly challenged Mark Roberts to a debate. Mark, of course, accepted instantly and Ryan fled with his tail between his legs and hasn't stopped running ever since.
Click to expand...

Mark? isnt that the guy that claimed to have had the "aluminium" that came out of the tower just before collapse, in his hands?

very questionable person it hink.
 
Sparky said:
DC, play along with me for a minute.

Let's assume that the towers were felled by 1908 kg of strategically placed RDX cutting charges on a single floor of each of the towers resulting in the progressive collapse of both buildings per your arguments in the other thread.

Wouldn't that directly contradict Heiwa's assertion here in this thread that the collapse would be arrested by the lower floors? Yet you defend him here.

What's the purpose? You can't simultaneously back both both arguments. What are you trying to prove?
Click to expand...

the problem is, Dr. Bazants theory where i based that 1908 kg on , will not work in reality. its to sinplified. its a fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom