WTC collapses - Layman's terms again

Zorglub said:
To say that Heiwa is a disgrace to the engineering profession is to give him credit for having some sort of profession in engineering. Heiwa is a professional engineer as much as I am a professional fighter pilot. I have a dream of being a pilot, but it is nothing more but a dream. If a real fighter pilot tells me facts about flying a jet I wouldn't dream of telling him/her they're wrong,
Heiwa is a fraud, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...


This post introduces a complicated issue, with implications that go beyond conspiracy theories and impinge on the state of higher education in the Western world. Compared with Heiwa, the real engineers who post here exhibit a degree of learning and understanding that is qualitatively superior and, perhaps more important, different. The question naturally arises, Is Heiwa a bad, incompetent engineer, or he is no engineer at all? Interestingly, the real engineers label Heiwa a disgrace to his profession, while non-engineers such as you and I tend to regard him as a fraud. I suspect that we exhibit signs of denial regarding the debased state of learning and the prevalence of political correctness in colleges and universities.

Bill Ayers is a murderous, unrepentant terrorist, but a group--not merely one person--of academics and administrators found him suitable to be awarded tenure at a prestigious school. Similarly, Ward Churchill is a total fraud, a white man who pretends to be an Indian, but his far-left ideology was sufficient to open doors leading to his appointment as a department head. Judy Wood is manifestly deranged, but her inability to comprehend basic physics doesn't prevent her from holding a teaching job.

We'd like to think that nobody would award Heiwa a degree in engineering, but, you know what? --we're probably wrong!
 
pomeroo said:
This post introduces a complicated issue, with implications that go beyond conspiracy theories and impinge on the state of higher education in the Western world. Compared with Heiwa, the real engineers who post here exhibit a degree of learning and understanding that is qualitatively superior and, perhaps more important, different. The question naturally arises, Is Heiwa a bad, incompetent engineer, or he is no engineer at all? Interestingly, the real engineers label Heiwa a disgrace to his profession, while non-engineers such as you and I tend to regard him as a fraud. I suspect that we exhibit signs of denial regarding the debased state of learning and the prevalence of political correctness in colleges and universities.

Bill Ayers is a murderous, unrepentant terrorist, but a group--not merely one person--of academics and administrators found him suitable to be awarded tenure at a prestigious school. Similarly, Ward Churchill is a total fraud, a white man who pretends to be an Indian, but his far-left ideology was sufficient to open doors leading to his appointment as a department head. Judy Wood is manifestly deranged, but her inability to comprehend basic physics doesn't prevent her from holding a teaching job.

We'd like to think that nobody would award Heiwa a degree in engineering, but, you know what? --we're probably wrong!
Click to expand...


Before you start prophesying the decline and fall of Western civilization, I'd like to reiterate a point I've previously made, namely, every profession has at least a few crackpots, charlatans, and quacks, despite the best efforts of universities, licensing agencies, and professional societies to weed them out. It simply can't be helped.
 
pomeroo said:
THOUSANDS, not hundreds, of people witnessed Flight 175 crash into the South Tower.
Click to expand...

I prefer not to over estimate numbers when I am unsure. And after yeras of debating with truthers I´ve come to learn that it is for the best if you don´t give them the opportunity to nitpick (that is my job). With all the people who followed that day on TV we´d be best counting for more than in "thousands". But as Heiwa, a no-planer, claims it all could be real time editing I have to stick to those who were there. So far no truther has claimed there was real time editing of people memories. But I´ll guess it is a question of time.
 
pomeroo said:
This post introduces a complicated issue, with implications that go beyond conspiracy theories and impinge on the state of higher education in the Western world. Compared with Heiwa, the real engineers who post here exhibit a degree of learning and understanding that is qualitatively superior and, perhaps more important, different. The question naturally arises, Is Heiwa a bad, incompetent engineer, or he is no engineer at all? Interestingly, the real engineers label Heiwa a disgrace to his profession, while non-engineers such as you and I tend to regard him as a fraud. I suspect that we exhibit signs of denial regarding the debased state of learning and the prevalence of political correctness in colleges and universities. [/QUOTE]You are absolutely correct I belive. And it is an interesting point wich I have to think about for a while.
Of course I do not have the knowledge over those educated in their profession. Neither would I claim better knowledge.
Now, the reason for me caling Heiwa a fraud is partly because, as you imply, I do not have the level of education, in this area, where I can pinpoint why he is a fraud and not just bad engineer.
But partly also because: when I see real engineers debating with Heiwa they tend to do so on a turf where he can play the game of his choice. Therefore he can continue the debate in the way he wants to. Now a debate is a place for beliefs, facts and knowledge to have a stand-off. At its best.
With Heiwa it is a trench war where he dodges and ducks ever so often, he slips in and out of his own caves.
Even though it is a debate he is loosing every time, he urges for the attention he gets here. Therefore, for better or worse, I tend to try to debate him off his field. For better or worse.


pomeroo said:
We'd like to think that nobody would award Heiwa a degree in engineering, but, you know what? --we're probably wrong!
Click to expand...
WIth all the fantasies he has shown us so far I am actually not convinced his degree is just not another one of his fantasies. It might as well be one of his drrams.
Click to expand...
 
With resepct, the term fraud is probably unhelpful. I see no reason to doubt that he is a qualified naval architect of some description. However one has to question his capability and competence in respect of comments on structural and fire engineering matters.

The legal test of competence is the standard which a reasonable trained professional would exercise in the course of his duties. In a case such as this, it would therefore be benchmarked against either the "oridinary" engineer or, I would suggest, the expert engineers who deal with tall buildings work.

In both cases Heiwa has failed. In particular his refusal to post competent technical calculations or other substantive analysis when challenged, and in a manner which might reasonably suggest that such calculations do not exist, falls below the standard we would would expect in a normal project, never mind something as complex as WTC.

So in my professional view he is either incompetent or - and I'm tending this way - deeply delusional.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to wait so long before responding.

[X],
Gumboot made a very good post about the collapse, which I've linked below. It might explain things better than I could.
Click to expand...
I have read similar theories to what he is suggesting in other reports. I think it is what Bazant and Zhou wrote about if I remember correctly. More and more I am noticing voluminous threads devoted to this topic on these forums. I need lots of time to read though as many as I can. My sense right now is that there is disagreement among posters and even among the experts although it is clear that the vast majority of the scientific community reject the notion of cd (at least publicly). Because of what I feel is credible and substantial witness testimony, and admittedly because of my own impression of how the buildings looked as they collapsed, I can't help but feel that cd shouldn't be left off the table as a hypothesis worthy of more scientific study.

Then why are no explosions heard in the videos? Explosives have a rather telling sound. I would think the concussions would be heard. And detected on the seismographs.
Click to expand...
Claiming that the lack of video evidence is proof that there were no explosions is a logical fallacy. It is similar to saying that there is no picture of an airplane hitting the Pentagon therefore one didn't and ignoring the witness testimony. I find this analogy very similar because there has been many firefighters, rescue workers, and civilian witnesses who were there that day that have made reports that they heard explosions. Some of these people have said that it sounds to them like bombs were in the building. As for the seismograph evidence this is kind of subjective. Both the cd theorists and the mainstream theorists claim that it supports their views. Of course the mainstream theorists claim that the cders are just misinterpretting the seismographic evidence but the Cders say the same about the mainstream theorists. I guess there is two sides to that coin.

This does not support your hypothesis of the building being pulverized into "dust".
Click to expand...
I'm sure you have seen the pictures of Ground Zero. I am not sure exactly how you are defining the word "dust" but there is no mistaking that there was an incredibly enormous (and toxic) cloud of finely pulverized building material, lots of metal pieces, human remains, and really not much else according to what I have heard:
You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk.
You don't find a chair.
You don't find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust.
Click to expand...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
I have actually seen the video of the Ground Zero worker saying this but I can't find it at this moment.
 
it is clear that the vast majority of the scientific community reject the notion of cd (at least publicly).
Click to expand...

What have the scientific community got to do with it? Why would you ask a scientist?

Do you mean engineering? And what evidence do you have that their public views may not be wholly representative?
 
"How the building looked as it collapsed"?

Dommyboy; How should it have looked? Why do you think it should look different than it did?
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
I'm sure you have seen the pictures of Ground Zero.
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think you have.All those 30 ft lengths of steel beam laying about?Not turned into dust.Those collapsing are what pulverised everything else.Desks?No match for steel.Chairs?Again no match for steel.Humans?Guess what?Sadly no match for getting caught in basically a blender with steel and concrete.Oh and the concrete turning to dust?It's concrete.It didn't arrive on earth in inviolate form,it's basically hard mud.I can pulverize it with a 10 pound hammer,how much energy is involved in a collapsing 110 storey building?An Awesome amount to be sure.Forces beyond your imagination are at work here,go back to imdb.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
[X],

I have read similar theories to what he is suggesting in other reports. I think it is what Bazant and Zhou wrote about if I remember correctly. More and more I am noticing voluminous threads devoted to this topic on these forums. I need lots of time to read though as many as I can. My sense right now is that there is disagreement among posters and even among the experts although it is clear that the vast majority of the scientific community reject the notion of cd (at least publicly). Because of what I feel is credible and substantial witness testimony, and admittedly because of my own impression of how the buildings looked as they collapsed, I can't help but feel that cd shouldn't be left off the table as a hypothesis worthy of more scientific study.
Click to expand...


CD has nothing to make it worthy of more study. There is no need for it to collapse the buildings, given the circumstances. There is no evidence for it. The logistics of rigging the explosives in the correct places and able to resist the damage from the aircraft, are daunting to say the least.



dommyboysinjapan said:
Claiming that the lack of video evidence is proof that there were no explosions is a logical fallacy. It is similar to saying that there is no picture of an airplane hitting the Pentagon therefore one didn't and ignoring the witness testimony. I find this analogy very similar because there has been many firefighters, rescue workers, and civilian witnesses who were there that day that have made reports that they heard explosions. Some of these people have said that it sounds to them like bombs were in the building. As for the seismograph evidence this is kind of subjective. Both the cd theorists and the mainstream theorists claim that it supports their views. Of course the mainstream theorists claim that the cders are just misinterpretting the seismographic evidence but the Cders say the same about the mainstream theorists. I guess there is two sides to that coin.
Click to expand...


No, it is not the same. If there were no videos of the impacts at the WTC, then you might have a valid point. But the fact remains that there is substantial video footage. And the absolute lack of any of the evience that would necessary be present if there were explosives counts against that hypothesis heavily. You can't just handwave it away by saying that the lack of telltales of explosives on video is comparable to the lack of video of the crash at the Pentagon. That is a logical fallacy. You are comparing two different events, and trying to compare different sources of evidence to ignore the blatant lack of evidence of one event.
By the way, we know a plane hit the pentagon because of wreckage, eyewitness testimony, and tracking data.


dommyboysinjapan said:
I'm sure you have seen the pictures of Ground Zero. I am not sure exactly how you are defining the word "dust" but there is no mistaking that there was an incredibly enormous (and toxic) cloud of finely pulverized building material, lots of metal pieces, human remains, and really not much else according to what I have heard:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
I have actually seen the video of the Ground Zero worker saying this but I can't find it at this moment.
Click to expand...


By "dust" I was referring to the oft-repeated line of the concrete being turned to dust. Pulverized, definately. Dustified? No.
 
Then why are no explosions heard in the videos? Explosives have a rather telling sound. I would think the concussions would be heard. And detected on the seismographs.
Click to expand...

Claiming that the lack of video evidence is proof that there were no explosions is a logical fallacy. It is similar to saying that there is no picture of an airplane hitting the Pentagon therefore one didn't and ignoring the witness testimony.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no. You are incorrectly positing that those are similar. That is incorrect. When people say there is no video evidence of explosions, they are not saying that such evidence was not recorded, or such recordings are hard to interpret, such as what exists with the blurred or far away images of the Pentagon event. Nor are they are saying that the evidence simply hasn't been gathered yet, implying that, once it's gathered, there's a possibility that it will indeed be there. What they are saying is that the video that was recorded absolutely lacks any indications of explosions.

In other words, the evidence does indeed exist, and it negates the claim that explosions are visible. In the case of the Pentagon, the imagry evidence does not exist because the devices that recorded the event were incapable of providing any sort of clear image. There is a HUGE difference between the two, and it is logically erroneous to conflate them. You are misinterpreting the phrase "there is no evidence of explosives use at the WTC". You instead should realize that, from the context of the statements that line is said in, the people saying that are saying "The evidence shows that explosives were not used at the WTC".

And in regards to people hearing "explosions":

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

It is a bad logical error to assume that those descriptions indicated explosive demolitions use.
 
beachnut said:
The dust was mostly insulation, and drywall.
Click to expand...
Anyone who's ever done any home remodelling and dealt with drywall can state just how much dust is produced when cutting drywall, let alone smashing it between tons of other material.
 
Last edited:
People who belive that Crush down and crush up cannot happen at the same time, are idiots.
 
There's a difference between making a simplification for the purposes of modeling something, to make the math easier, and believing that it's actually how it happened. Of course, this point has already been made ad nauseam in this very thread.

I think that folks have done a remarkable job in explaining to you and to others why the upper portion of the building, which is falling, crushed or broke up less than the lower portion of the building. But I'm curious as to why you think it matters at all. Mass is mass. It's going to hit with the same amount of momentum / kinetic energy whether it's 1 piece, 10 pieces, 1000 pieces.
 
Last edited:
i hope someone will correct your last post :)
when i do, you would not belive me anyway :rolleyes:
 
Dictator Cheney said:
i hope someone will correct your last post :)
when i do, you would not belive me anyway :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Tell us exactly what you know that the real engineers who post here regularly do not. How did you acquire the knowledge that is not taught in engineering schools?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom