Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue

[DGM]

The article ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ) evidently shows and calculates the loadings on the columns and their stressess in the impact zone pre impact. The loads produce compressive stresses <30% yield in the columns, i.e. very safe. No big deal! Then there is some destruction due alleged plane crash and a fire. Nist advices the small redistribution of loadings due to that = all is still safe. All described in the article;

Then there is the mysterious free fall/impact. The loadings in the impact zone just prior, i.e. pre impact are then ZERO. The upper block is detached from the lower structure and has not yet impacted = ZERO loads.

In the article an impact is assumed, energy/force/loads are transmitted to the lower structure and ... generally only elastic compression takes place according calculations. Some plastic failures may occur, but the loads are then diverted sideways and ... the progressive collapse is arrested as excpected.

Hope this clarifies your questions? Thanks for your interest.
Heiwa:
How does this even come close to answering my question? Did you or did you not calculate the loads post impact at the initiation zone? If not how is anyone except a child supposed to think of you as anything but a fraud?

[Corsair 115]

I find it interesting to learn that he's a no-planer (always assuming that Zorgulb's post is a fair transaltion).Well, if so, that's the final nail in the coffin.

Actually, Architect nailed that coffin shut some time ago, so I suppose it'd be more accurate to say if Heiwa is a no-planer, then that's the last of the dirt being shovelled onto the coffin.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:
How does this even come close to answering my question? Did you or did you not calculate the loads post impact at the initiation zone? If not how is anyone except a child supposed to think of you as anything but a fraud?

?? Everything is described ... in layman's terms. From the article: "Let's assume the 'spring' below is suddenly compressed by 0.5 KE = E = 0.61 GNm at time Teffect.
The maximum compression d of the 'spring' due to energy E then becomes 78 centimeters (because d² = 2 E/C) and after that all the 0.61 GNm or 170 kWh of energy is absorbed as compression! And any motion has stopped! This is a good indication of the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by a 'spring' without any permanent deformations. "

Suddenly compressed = impact. Happy?

[tsig]

No-one laughs at Poms posts but plenty are laughing at yours, so maybe you are the joker?

Heiwa is the one who always laughed at the jokes even though he never got them.

[Architect]

?? Everything is described ... in layman's terms. From the article: "Let's assume the 'spring' below is suddenly compressed by 0.5 KE = E = 0.61 GNm at time Teffect.
The maximum compression d of the 'spring' due to energy E then becomes 78 centimeters (because d² = 2 E/C) and after that all the 0.61 GNm or 170 kWh of energy is absorbed as compression! And any motion has stopped! This is a good indication of the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by a 'spring' without any permanent deformations. "

Suddenly compressed = impact. Happy?

No Heiwa, that does not comprise any meaningful level of structural analysis or calculation, indeed you have overlooked very basic structural engineering issues which one would have expected a second year student to have picked up.

[Architect]

Heiwa is the one who always laughed at the jokes even though he never got them.

I am minded of the old phrase, "We're not laughing with you"........


(This may not translate readily into other languages)

[Heiwa]

No Heiwa, that does not comprise any meaningful level of structural analysis or calculation, indeed you have overlooked very basic structural engineering issues which one would have expected a second year student to have picked up.

It does given the assumptions! Bazant/Seffen (and Nist in its first attempt) on the other hand assume that the upper block and the structure below the first storey of the lower structure are 100% solid/rigid/aligned and then of course the poor storey in between gets flattened hammer/nail style. And that should be the end of the collapse under those assumptions. Strangely however, the second storey below, that was previously rigid and solid, now suddenly becomes neither and is mysteriously crushed, etc. The upper block is still indestructible, due to its uniform density, and can continue the destruction below until the end. Pure folly and not possible if you read my article as a whole and the conclusions.

Cock-sure certainty is the source of much that is worst in our present world.

BTW - what basic engineering issues are overlooked?

[Heiwa]

I am minded of the old phrase, "We're not laughing with you"........


(This may not translate readily into other languages)

I am still waiting for the pictures of free fall, impact and first failures. Any problems to find those?

[Corsair 115]

I am still waiting for the pictures of free fall, impact and first failures. Any problems to find those?We're still waiting for your in-depth calculations. Any problems doing those?

[Architect]

I am still waiting for the pictures of free fall, impact and first failures. Any problems to find those?

You appear to have overlooked my post where I pointed out that you'd qualified your request for photographic evidence to a level whereby you knew fine it couldn't be produced.

Really, you're not very good at the hand-waving - are you?

[DC]

No-one laughs at Poms posts but plenty are laughing at yours, so maybe you are the joker?

wrong, i laughed. i alsways have to laugh when ppl take the Bazantsche Collapse theory as a fact lol.

[DGM]

?? Everything is described ... in layman's terms. From the article: "Let's assume the 'spring' below is suddenly compressed by 0.5 KE = E = 0.61 GNm at time Teffect.
The maximum compression d of the 'spring' due to energy E then becomes 78 centimeters (because d² = 2 E/C) and after that all the 0.61 GNm or 170 kWh of energy is absorbed as compression! And any motion has stopped! This is a good indication of the elastic strain energy that could be absorbed by a 'spring' without any permanent deformations. "

Suddenly compressed = impact. Happy?


It seems very clear that the reason you describe it that way is because you are indeed one (laymen that is). How can you do any analysis if you can't calculate the load on the structure post impact at that zone? Your paper is nothing more than a poor attempt to sway unknowing people to your believes. Pure propaganda.

The engineering world is laughing at you on this as it did over your "Estonia" analysis. You need help.

[DC]

It seems very clear that the reason you describe it that way is because you are indeed one (laymen that is). How can you do any analysis if you can't calculate the load on the structure post impact at that zone? Your paper is nothing more than a poor attempt to sway unknowing people to your believes. Pure propaganda.

The engineering world is laughing at you on this as it did over your "Estonia" analysis. You need help.

are you representant for the Engineering world?

[padragan]

I am minded of the old phrase, "We're not laughing with you"........


(This may not translate readily into other languages)

We use the exact same phrase in swedish, so the point should be obvious for the designated target.

(btw I noticed that he ignored my last posting, perhaps he realised that I'm not interested in replies not related to what I asked for)

[DGM]

are you representant for the Engineering world?
Can you point to were he calculates the load post impact in that zone? You don't think it's pertinent to take into consideration the damage to a building to know how it collapsed?

He writes for children because they're all he fool. Show me where I'm wrong?

[DC]

Can you point to were he calculates the load post impact in that zone? You don't think it's pertinent to take into consideration the damage to a building to know how it collapsed?

He writes for children because they're all he fool. Show me where I'm wrong?

can you point me to tha calculations of Bazant, where he calculates away the mass that falls next to the towers and not on them?

and can you point me out something that would backup Bazant0s claims that only the most upper floor is affected at impact of the upper part.

can you show me where Bazant calculates the energy "used" for deformation of the upper tower part?

[DGM]

can you point me to tha calculations of Bazant, where he calculates away the mass that falls next to the towers and not on them?

and can you point me out something that would backup Bazant0s claims that only the most upper floor is affected at impact of the upper part.

can you show me where Bazant calculates the energy "used" for deformation of the upper tower part?
What are you talking about? How does any of this pertain to my question of Heiwa's analysis (or his paper for that matter)?

BTW Read Bazant's papers you may gain so insight into the questions you asked. Dr Greening's paper is also helpful.

[pomeroo]

Are you joking?


There is a fine distinction to be observed here: I am laughing hard, but I am not joking.

Either you are not a real engineer at all, or you are unbelievably incompetent.

[rwguinn]

are you representant for the Engineering world?
We don't elect representatives.
But indeed, his comments are representative OF the Engineering World

[Heiwa]

It seems very clear that the reason you describe it that way is because you are indeed one (laymen that is). How can you do any analysis if you can't calculate the load on the structure post impact at that zone? Your paper is nothing more than a poor attempt to sway unknowing people to your believes. Pure propaganda.

The engineering world is laughing at you on this as it did over your "Estonia" analysis. You need help.

What load on the structure (below, I assume) post impact are you talking about?

The total weight of the upper block? Evidently the lower structure can carry that! It did for 30+ years.

Some dynamic impact load? No impact occurs, as far as I am concerned, so I assume one (read the article) and the result is only a dynamic, elastic reaction force developing in the lower structure (spring) cancelling any further progressive collapse.

Of course the lower structure is not just 1000's of springs; there are many parts, e.g. floors, that deflect the dynamic load away from the structure, etc. All that can evidently be simulated and calculated - see link in the paper.

Propaganda? Did your sect leader propose that? Develop the topic in another thread, please.

Estonia? Nobody is laughing! So give me only the name of one person laughing at me to back up your statement.

Suggest we return discussing tower collapse issues; no photos of free fall, impact, post loads on the structure below, etc.

[Heiwa]

We're still waiting for your in-depth calculations. Any problems doing those?

None at all! Just provide the input data: time when free fall starts, masses involved, time when free fall ends and impact or impacts occur and where i.e. locations and the relevant structure at that location.

Then I will tell you what happens backed up with calculations.

Happy?

[DC]

What are you talking about? How does any of this pertain to my question of Heiwa's analysis (or his paper for that matter)?

BTW Read Bazant's papers you may gain so insight into the questions you asked. Dr Greening's paper is also helpful.

i readed his theory several times, its always good for a laugh.

[DGM]

What load on the structure (below, I assume) post impact are you talking about?

The total weight of the upper block? Evidently the lower structure can carry that! It did for 30+ years.

Is this question for real? The load path around the documented damage caused by the airplanes.

Do I need to explain if you remove a structural member the load it was carrying needs to be redistributed some where. You don't think this is in some way different than as built? You must not because you don't calculate for it in your paper. This is a critical factor in determining the collapse initiation.

Stop hand waving the planes and the damaged caused by them away.

[padragan]

Estonia? Nobody is laughing! So give me only the name of one person laughing at me to back up your statement.


Well, since I've seen your attempts to discuss Estonia on the Flashback website, I must raise my hand. I've laughed many times at you there.

[rwguinn]

Well, since I've seen your attempts to discuss Estonia on the Flashback website, I must raise my hand. I've laughed many times at you there.
that makes at least 2 of us...

[SpitfireIX]

What load on the structure (below, I assume) post impact are you talking about?

The total weight of the upper block? Evidently the lower structure can carry that! It did for 30+ years.


Heiwa, how much weight do you think that a single floor of one of the World Trade Center towers could have carried before it failed? Do you understand that most of the weight and impact force of the collapsing upper levels would have fallen on the floors, and not on the support columns?

Some dynamic impact load? No impact occurs, as far as I am concerned, so I assume one (read the article) and the result is only a dynamic, elastic reaction force developing in the lower structure (spring) cancelling any further progressive collapse.


You claim in your paper that no buckled columns were recovered from the WTC wreckage. Please explain what happened to these columns (http://www.debunking911.com/twistedsteel.jpg), if not buckling?

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...
*gets in line as well*
Can we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...
*gets in line as well*
Can we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...
*gets in line as well*
Can we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

[Zorglub]

that makes at least 2 of us...
*gets in line as well*
Could we please add *shaking head in disbelief* and *clinching fist and making a deep sigh and then laugh* as well?

[Newtons Bit]

Some dynamic impact load? No impact occurs, as far as I am concerned, so I assume one (read the article) and the result is only a dynamic, elastic reaction force developing in the lower structure (spring) cancelling any further progressive collapse.

Don't lie Heiwa. You yourself stated that there would be plastic deformation and that the yield stress would be exceeded. This is what we engineers call buckling and thus failure. Here's the quote from your "article".

To compress the 'spring' d = 78 centimeters you need a force F corresponding to 1.56 GN (because F = d C) and as the spring cross area at the top is 5.64 m², the compressive stress in the spring becomes temporarily 277 MPa which is above yield stress (248 MPa) but below the rupture stress. So maybe the 'spring' deforms plastically a little at the top just below the initiation zone but hardly lower down, where the spring cross area is 20 - 35 m² and the yield stress is higher and thus the force in the spring will produce much smaller stresses

You've been caught in a lie Heiwa. Will you admit it?

[DC]

Don't lie Heiwa. You yourself stated that there would be plastic deformation and that the yield stress would be exceeded. This is what we engineers call buckling and thus failure. Here's the quote from your "article".



You've been caught in a lie Heiwa. Will you admit it?

Buckling thus failure?

[funk de fino]

wrong, i laughed. i alsways have to laugh when ppl take the Bazantsche Collapse theory as a fact lol.

I also have to laugh when people try to be smart and their english is so poor that they embarrass themselves.

Try to "Readed" the posts or theories again Dictator! The OP is out of your league, stand back, nothing to see here for you my friend.

[DC]

I also have to laugh when people try to be smart and their english is so poor that they embarrass themselves.

Try to "Readed" the posts or theories again Dictator! The OP is out of your league, stand back, nothing to see here for you my friend.

Is language skill in english a precondition of being smart?

[DGM]

Buckling thus failure?
Yes!

ETA Sorry Newtons Bit, This answer was the only one that came to mind. I figured you're probably shaking your head.

[funk de fino]

Is language skill in english a precondition of being smart?

It is when you try to read technical papers written in english and then claim to understand them. Unfortunately the rest of your posts since you have been here negates the smart claim you may care to make.

If your english is poor you should maybe stick to facts and not try to be a smartmouth. It only makes you look silly.

[Heiwa]

Is this question for real? The load path around the documented damage caused by the airplanes.

Do I need to explain if you remove a structural member the load it was carrying needs to be redistributed some where. You don't think this is in some way different than as built? You must not because you don't calculate for it in your paper. This is a critical factor in determining the collapse initiation.

Stop hand waving the planes and the damaged caused by them away.

Yes, it is clear from my article. WTC1 = 35 wall columns cut, two, three floors damaged, etc. 100+ minutes before collapse. The redistribution is explained. No collapse followed! Stresses in intact columns increased a little. I did not include a photo of a woman and other persons waving from the impact hole but they were there. No fire, etc.

[tsig]

You appear to have overlooked my post where I pointed out that you'd qualified your request for photographic evidence to a level whereby you knew fine it couldn't be produced.

Really, you're not very good at the hand-waving - are you?

I think it's a definitional problem Heiwa thinks that Layman=complete idiot.

[DGM]

Yes, it is clear from my article. WTC1 = 35 wall columns cut, two, three floors damaged, etc. 100+ minutes before collapse. The redistribution is explained. No collapse followed! Stresses in intact columns increased a little. I did not include a photo of a woman and other persons waving from the impact hole but they were there. No fire, etc.
Why no load calculations? Only a "no big deal" hand wave.

[Heiwa]

Don't lie Heiwa. You yourself stated that there would be plastic deformation and that the yield stress would be exceeded. This is what we engineers call buckling and thus failure. Here's the quote from your "article".



You've been caught in a lie Heiwa. Will you admit it?

But you have to read the whole article! Nist does not explain its 'buckling'! Buckle bending, buckle torsion, buckle crumple up? Which one? All local failures, of course. Collapse has not even started of the lower structure. So local 'buckling' leads to free fall? Sure? Anyway, after these local failures any PE may be released, but, when and if it is applied to some intact structure (a floor?) below,it is certain it is deflected sideways = does not contribute to gravity collapse any more! On the contrary = it contributes to collapse arrest. All explained in the article. Loose parts get entangled in each other. It is not one solid mass suddenly dropping down!

Topic is collapse issues - not really the initiation before that, which nobody has been able to prove. Massive local failures, free fall, impact (and then collapse should start)? Not seen anywhere!

[Heiwa]

Why no load calculations? Only a "no big deal" hand wave.

??? I actually use the Nist calculations in my article. Read the article! Not too difficult.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, how much weight do you think that a single floor of one of the World Trade Center towers could have carried before it failed? Do you understand that most of the weight and impact force of the collapsing upper levels would have fallen on the floors, and not on the support columns?




You claim in your paper that no buckled columns were recovered from the WTC wreckage. Please explain what happened to these columns (http://www.debunking911.com/twistedsteel.jpg), if not buckling?

According Nist a floor can carry 6-11 other floors!

Yes, if you read the article, you will see that I understand that loads are put on the uppermost floor of the intact structure below! I then explain what happens! After some further local failures any collapse is arrested.

I claim that no buckled columns from the initiation/fire/heat zones of WTC1, 2were recovered, e.g. around floor 95 of WTC1. Pls quote properly. One reason may be that they never buckled? Not seen on any videos, anyway.
Other columns may have buckled later ... and before ... initiation but they are not part of my article.

[DGM]

??? I actually use the Nist calculations in my article. Read the article! Not too difficult.
Please quote these for me.

[tsig]

According Nist a floor can carry 6-11 other floors!

Yes, if you read the article, you will see that I understand that loads are put on the uppermost floor of the intact structure below! I then explain what happens! After some further local failures any collapse is arrested.

I claim that no buckled columns from the initiation/fire/heat zones of WTC1, 2were recovered, e.g. around floor 95 of WTC1. Pls quote properly. One reason may be that they never buckled? Not seen on any videos, anyway.
Other columns may have buckled later ... and before ... initiation but they are not part of my article.

Seems to me the collapse floor had to carry at least the 22 top floors all the time.

[rwguinn]

Seems to me the collapse floor had to carry at least the 22 top floors all the time.

The floors didn't carry anything--other than the 150 lb/ft^2 or whatever it was they were rated for--you know-people, desks, books, cubicle walls, office equipment--that sort of thing. The columns carried the loads--and some of them (ok, a fair percentage) got busted and pretty darned hot
As R. Mackey pointed out elsewhere--1psi overpressure takes the floor just about to limit load-and dumping all the weight of the floors above on a single floor is certainly going to break things...

[SpitfireIX]

According Nist a floor can carry 6-11 other floors!

Yes, if you read the article, you will see that I understand that loads are put on the uppermost floor of the intact structure below! I then explain what happens! After some further local failures any collapse is arrested.


You claim that some of the mass would have slid off to the side, and that friction and entanglement of whatever was left would have arrested the collapse. Please explain how, in your scenario, free-falling objects can be subjected to significant friction due to contact with other free-falling objects, and how the building's structural elements could have become "entangled" in such a way as to stop falling.

Please also explain why you feel that the floors of the WTC would have only suffered local failures when loaded beyond their capacity.

I claim that no buckled columns from the initiation/fire/heat zones of WTC1, 2were recovered, e.g. around floor 95 of WTC1. Pls quote properly.


That's not what you wrote; if that's what you meant, you need to re-word that section. I stand by my paraphrase.

From your paper (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm):

The major problem is that the authorities suggest that the top part, the upper block of WTC1 with assumed mean, uniform density 0.18 tons/m3 above the alleged buckled columns in the initiation zone - no such damaged, buckled, columns have been retrieved from the rubble . . . [bolding and italics original]


Further, how do you know that the columns in the linked photograph didn't come from the collapse-initiation zone? The buckled ends appear to have been exposed to fire.

One reason may be that they never buckled? Not seen on any videos, anyway.


The following video clearly shows columns in the collapse-initiation zone buckling right before the collapse:

K8dX3foxozQ

Other columns may have buckled later ... and before ... initiation but they are not part of my article.


So how did these other columns buckle, if not from overloading?

[Newtons Bit]

But you have to read the whole article! Nist does not explain its 'buckling'! Buckle bending, buckle torsion, buckle crumple up? Which one? All local failures, of course. Collapse has not even started of the lower structure. So local 'buckling' leads to free fall? Sure? Anyway, after these local failures any PE may be released, but, when and if it is applied to some intact structure (a floor?) below,it is certain it is deflected sideways = does not contribute to gravity collapse any more! On the contrary = it contributes to collapse arrest. All explained in the article. Loose parts get entangled in each other. It is not one solid mass suddenly dropping down!

Topic is collapse issues - not really the initiation before that, which nobody has been able to prove. Massive local failures, free fall, impact (and then collapse should start)? Not seen anywhere!

STOP DODGING. Is that all you can do?

only a dynamic, elastic reaction force developing in the lower structure (spring) cancelling any further progressive collapse.


he compressive stress in the spring becomes temporarily 277 MPa which is above yield stress (248 MPa) but below the rupture stress. So maybe the 'spring' deforms plastically

These are mutually exclusive statements, Heiwa. Both cannot be true. Which means you were lying when you wrote one of them. Which statement of yours do you back? Was the "spring" elastic or did it delve into some plastic deformation?

[DC]

Yes!

ETA Sorry Newtons Bit, This answer was the only one that came to mind. I figured you're probably shaking your head.

FEMA WTC Building Performance Study
Chapter 7
page 18

Picture of a Steel Coloumn, buckling damage but not failed.

[Heiwa]

STOP DODGING. Is that all you can do?






These are mutually exclusive statements, Heiwa. Both cannot be true. Which means you were lying when you wrote one of them. Which statement of yours do you back? Was the "spring" elastic or did it delve into some plastic deformation?

Both! There is not one spring (as assumed by NIST & Co) but 280+ vertical springs to start with (and many horizontal ones). Most of them will probably behave elastically, i.e. no failure, some plastically, i.e. failure in one location (assuming loads are actually applied and do not slip off). After these initial reactions, the loads on the plastically deformed springs will be diverted somewhere else, maybe sideways, and will then not participate in the vertical collapse. And my reasoning is that they will participate in what is described as collapse arrest. Read the article as a whole and the conclusions and you will understand. I find it strange that NIST does not consider collapse arrest as a possible outcome of the local failures in the initiation zone. This is what normally happens.

And, please, do not use emotional words like lie, etc. in your comments. Virulent passion does not contribute to solving technical questions.

[Minadin]

Buckling IS failed.

[DC]

Buckling IS failed.

for a single coloumns yes, but when that coloum is part of a structure. the load will be shiftet to the other coloumns.

i was wrong first, i thaught with buckling the bowing is ment, but its indeed the point of failure, (Knicken)

[uk_dave]

Buckling IS failed.

Not if your ship doesn't sink. Apparently. :boggled:

[Heiwa]

Not if your ship doesn't sink. Apparently. :boggled:

I have this plastic garden table with four legs. We BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (you know; bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground.
The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse due to this impact. I wonder why?

[Architect]

So we can compare the structural performance of a preformed plastic garden table with the complex composite structure of the WTC?

Do you realise just how unprofessional and poorly educated that would be??

[tsig]

The floors didn't carry anything--other than the 150 lb/ft^2 or whatever it was they were rated for--you know-people, desks, books, cubicle walls, office equipment--that sort of thing. The columns carried the loads--and some of them (ok, a fair percentage) got busted and pretty darned hot
As R. Mackey pointed out elsewhere--1psi overpressure takes the floor just about to limit load-and dumping all the weight of the floors above on a single floor is certainly going to break things...

Sorry i was using floor to mean the whole thing including supporting columns.

[Heiwa]

1. So we can compare the structural performance of a preformed plastic garden table with the complex composite structure of the WTC?

2. Do you realise just how unprofessional and poorly educated that would be??

1. Yes! (Who said it was pre-formed?)

2. No! Actually it is very educational to start with simple structures (4 columns in 3-D) to learn the basics and then go to more complex structures (280+ columns) to apply the basics in a professional manner. NWO physics 1-D theories like Bazant/Seffen have nothing to do with this.

[DGM]

1. Yes! (Who said it was pre-formed?)

2. No! Actually it is very educational to start with simple structures (4 columns in 3-D) to learn the basics and then go to more complex structures (280+ columns) to apply the basics in a professional manner. NWO physics 1-D theories like Bazant/Seffen have nothing to do with this.
Please start by anchoring all of the legs to the ground before you start this test. Does the table still tip? If not what happened to the other legs.

Are we sure he's an engineer?

[Architect]

He's certainly not sane, if he thinks that a plastic - presumably preformed - piece of garden furniture can be used as a structural metaphor or meaningful comparison for a complex structural system.

I'm gobsmacked, frankly.

[Newtons Bit]

Please start by anchoring all of the legs to the ground before you start this test. Does the table still tip? If not what happened to the other legs.

Are we sure he's an engineer?

Actually, we're pretty sure he's not. We've challenged him a number of times to prove that he is (I've done it twice in this thread), he completly ignores those comments. He acts like they don't exist.

I suppose he thinks that ignoring anything that could shed light into whether or not he actually has the expertise he claims he has is an effective tactic. If there's nothing technical for us to debunk (or even analyze to see if it he can do it correctly) there's no way we can challenge his claim that he is a "structural engineer".

[Architect]

In all fairness, didn't he say he was a naval architect who was qualified in structural engineering?

But I doubt even this latter part now, I must admit. There's nothing at all in his posts that shows any grasp of structural design and analysis issues, and the garden furniture analogy is just incredibly inappropriate.

[MarkCorrigan]

1. Yes! (Who said it was pre-formed?)

2. No! Actually it is very educational to start with simple structures (4 columns in 3-D) to learn the basics and then go to more complex structures (280+ columns) to apply the basics in a professional manner. NWO physics 1-D theories like Bazant/Seffen have nothing to do with this.

http://www.iamsheamus.co.uk/images/stupidity.jpg

[Heiwa]

Please start by anchoring all of the legs to the ground before you start this test. Does the table still tip? If not what happened to the other legs.

Test? Of course, in lesson 12 we can modify the boundary conditions of the sad occurence in lesson 1, etc. But I didn't tell you where on the table the impact occurred - lesson 5. Or if the plate of grilled steaks had uniform density. Lesson 8.

Anyway, one leg failed due to the impact and the horizontal table top apparently came in a sloping position a little, as there was no support in one corner.

This apparently affected the weights on the table - attached to it in various ways - lesson 6. They apparently moved sideways in the direction of the slope (actually the horizontal part of the slope - lesson 7) due to vertical gravity force ... but there was no magic horizontal force (gravity doesn't work in that direction) apart from friction (also caused by gravity in a way), which is another phenomenom, so they just went sideways ... and crashed on the ground.

It seems that loose weights on a structure take the easiest way down and do not start to crush intact structure below. It only happens in 1-D simulations of scientists like Bazant and Seffen. But we live in 3-D, which of course also can be manipulated by, e.g. Hollywood! But they only do it in 2-D. Think 3-D. It helps.

[DGM]

Rant snipped................
It seems that loose weights on a structure take the easiest way down..................

Now if you really understood buildings and were capable of doing the calculations you would realize that this is indeed what happened on 9/11.

[phunk]

Test? Of course, in lesson 12 we can modify the boundary conditions of the sad occurence in lesson 1, etc. But I didn't tell you where on the table the impact occurred - lesson 5. Or if the plate of grilled steaks had uniform density. Lesson 8.

Anyway, one leg failed due to the impact and the horizontal table top apparently came in a sloping position a little, as there was no support in one corner.

This apparently affected the weights on the table - attached to it in various ways - lesson 6. They apparently moved sideways in the direction of the slope (actually the horizontal part of the slope - lesson 7) due to vertical gravity force ... but there was no magic horizontal force (gravity doesn't work in that direction) apart from friction (also caused by gravity in a way), which is another phenomenom, so they just went sideways ... and crashed on the ground.

It seems that loose weights on a structure take the easiest way down and do not start to crush intact structure below. It only happens in 1-D simulations of scientists like Bazant and Seffen. But we live in 3-D, which of course also can be manipulated by, e.g. Hollywood! But they only do it in 2-D. Think 3-D. It helps.


Try it with a 1 acre table, and drop 30000 tons on it. See how much slides off the sides then.

[Heiwa]

Try it with a 1 acre table, and drop 30000 tons on it. See how much slides off the sides then.

In Bazant/Seffen's 1-D universe there is no 1 acre table - only a point at a top of line. Try to put 30 000 tons on that point (uniform density of course). Not possible unless the universe is infinite.

OK - a 2-D table (still not a 1 acre table that requires 3-D) with two legs A and B. Where do you put your 30 000 tons. On leg A? It crushes! On leg B? It crushes! Between legs A and B. Legs A and B do not crush.

OK - a 3-D 1 acre table! How many legs? Three at least! A, B and C. Where do you put your 30 000 tons? Uniform? 10 000 tons on each leg.

OK - A, B and C collapses.

And the 3 times 10 000 tons remain intact on top of the rubble of A, B and C.

Where did the 30 000 tons end up?

[Heiwa]

Now if you really understood buildings and were capable of doing the calculations you would realize that this is indeed what happened on 9/11.

I understand buildings and I am capable of doing the the calculations and I therefore realize that what happened on 9/11 was not due to gravity alone. Some other suspects were involved. Read my article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Intelligent comments are always welcome.

[DGM]

I understand buildings and I am capable of doing the the calculations and I therefore realize that what happened on 9/11 was not due to gravity alone. Some other suspects were involved. Read my article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Intelligent comments are always welcome.

And ignored!

[Corsair 115]

Try it with a 1 acre table, and drop 30000 tons on it. See how much slides off the sides then.First we'd have to answer what the density is of that 30,000 tons of material. Density matter more than mass you know! (According to Heiwa at any rate.)

[DGM]

In Bazant/Seffen's 1-D universe there is no 1 acre table - only a point at a top of line. Try to put 30 000 tons on that point (uniform density of course). Not possible unless the universe is infinite.

OK - a 2-D table (still not a 1 acre table that requires 3-D) with two legs A and B. Where do you put your 30 000 tons. On leg A? It crushes! On leg B? It crushes! Between legs A and B. Legs A and B do not crush.

OK - a 3-D 1 acre table! How many legs? Three at least! A, B and C. Where do you put your 30 000 tons? Uniform? 10 000 tons on each leg.

OK - A, B and C collapses.

And the 3 times 10 000 tons remain intact on top of the rubble of A, B and C.

Where did the 30 000 tons end up?
This post is a prime example of the old saying;
"If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance try to baffle them with your BS"
Guess what Heiwa? It didn't work!

[A W Smith]

I have this plastic garden table with four legs. We BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (you know; bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground.
The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse due to this impact. I wonder why?


Great god almighty. You can't possibly be an engineer. Thats like trying to compare a dog when it lifts its leg to pee on a hydrant, to the tower core structure. Do you have any idea how "stoooopid" (jersey dialect. not a typo) you sound?

[cloudshipsrule]

I understand buildings and I am capable of doing the the calculations and I therefore realize that what happened on 9/11 was not due to gravity alone. Some other suspects were involved.

You are absolutely correct. It was gravity and a WHOLE LOTTA' MASS.

[cloudshipsrule]

I have this plastic garden table with four legs. We BBQued and put a lot of weight on the table (you know; bottles, plates, glasses = weight). And then one guest dropped a plate of grilled steaks on the table (impact) and one leg of the table failed (design fault) - buckled - and the table tipped ... and all the weight shifted ... and ended up on the ground.
The other three table legs ... miraculously didn't globally collapse due to this impact. I wonder why?

To equate a plastic BBQ table with the twin towers is globally dumb. You've no idea what inertia is, do you?

[SpitfireIX]

Great god almighty. You can't possibly be an engineer. Thats like trying to compare a dog when it lifts its leg to pee on a hydrant, to the tower core structure. Do you have any idea how "stoooopid" (jersey dialect. not a typo) you sound?


Heiwa's barbecue table is right up there with spooked911's rabbit fence and kerosene (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836). :faint: :faint: :faint: :faint:

[Heiwa]

This post is a prime example of the old saying;
"If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance try to baffle them with your BS"
Guess what Heiwa? It didn't work!

Of course it worked! Nobody could answer the last question.

[padragan]

Of course it worked! Nobody could answer the last question.

What's the point in answering questions related to an example that doesn't say anything about the real conditions (something that has been pointed out to you with several examples btw)? An answer that you would probably just ignore, like you do with all arguments or questions you can't handle.

The fact that you got not on but two stundie nominations from this thread allready (the first one right now in second place in the march poll) should tell you something about the sense you make...

[DGM]

Of course it worked! Nobody could answer the last question.
So you admit the whole thing was BS?

[Heiwa]

What's the point in answering questions related to an example that doesn't say anything about the real conditions (something that has been pointed out to you with several examples btw)? An answer that you would probably just ignore, like you do with all arguments or questions you can't handle.

The fact that you got not on but two stundie nominations from this thread allready (the first one right now in second place in the march poll) should tell you something about the sense you make...

Example? 30 000 tons of solid, rigid, uniform density, indestructible mass (an upper block) is dropped and destroyed something much bigger. What happened to this upper block afterwards? Did it disappear? When, where? It is a fantastic mass.

Another example. I drop a 100 kgs steel block on you. Afterwards, when you have been crushed, I retrieve my 100 kgs steel block from the mess that were you, so I can drop it on someone else.

What happened to your 30 000 tons?

[DGM]

Example? 30 000 tons of solid, rigid, uniform density, indestructible mass (an upper block) is dropped and destroyed something much bigger. What happened to this upper block afterwards? Did it disappear? When, where? It is a fantastic mass.

Another example. I drop a 100 kgs steel block on you. Afterwards, when you have been crushed, I retrieve my 100 kgs steel block from the mess that were you, so I can drop it on someone else.

What happened to your 30 000 tons?
So reality no longer matters to you I see. Keep trying to convince the children. Adults know better (and children aren't as gullible as you think).

[rwguinn]

So reality no longer matters to you I see. Keep trying to convince the children. Adults know better (and children aren't as gullible as he thinks).
I guess he doesn't think that multi-story pile of debris included the upper portions of the buildning at all.
It is amazing that children that young can type so well, isn't it?

[Evilgiraffe]

I have a layman's question....

Do the simplifying assumptions of Seffen & Bazant, that Heiwa seems obsessed with (uniform density, unbreakable rigid upper block etc), make global collapse more or less likely than a more sophisticated analysis would?

If they make collapse less likely it seems Heiwa's position is untenable.

If it makes collapse more likely, has a more realistic analysis been carried out?

[Minadin]

The simplifications are in favor of the prevention of a global collapse.

[DGM]

I have a layman's question....

Do the simplifying assumptions of Seffen & Bazant, that Heiwa seems obsessed with (uniform density, unbreakable rigid upper block etc), make global collapse more or less likely than a more sophisticated analysis would?

If they make collapse less likely it seems Heiwa's position is untenable.

If it makes collapse more likely, has a more realistic analysis been carried out?
They don't assume what Heiwa says they do. Their models are biased toward ease of calculation and collapse arrest.

[Evilgiraffe]

Ok thanks guys...

So if reality says the towers collapsed, and a simulation biased towards their survival says that the towers collapsed..... WTF is Heiwa on about?

[stateofgrace]

Of course it worked! Nobody could answer the last question.

You are correct Heiwa,nobody did answer the last question, ie the question posted prior to your post.

To equate a plastic BBQ table with the twin towers is globally dumb. You've no idea what inertia is, do you?

Please allow me.

Yes,it is globally dumb. No,he has no idea what inertia is.

[Heiwa]

The simplifications are in favor of the prevention of a global collapse.

Or just the contrary: without these simplifications global collapse will never occur.

[Minadin]

Or just the contrary: without these simplifications global collapse will never occur.

Global collapse DID occur.

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that the assumptions made in Bazant's paper:

A) Had any effect on the real-world collapse.

B) Aren't in favor of collapse prevention.

Please provide your own scenario and/or the necessary calculations to back up either statement. I'm not even asking for both. One or the other will do for now.

[Architect]

Garden furniture -----> WTC structure.


Heiwa ------> Incompetent.

[Dave Rogers]

So if reality says the towers collapsed, and a simulation biased towards their survival says that the towers collapsed..... WTF is Heiwa on about?

Post #588, and none of us have figured that out yet. If you find out, let us all know.

Dave

[padragan]

Example?

Yes, example. Or do you propose that the twin towers WERE a garden table made out of plastic?

30 000 tons of solid, rigid, uniform density,

Ah, here we go again. Since you once more use the word DENSITY in your posting, let me hand you a friendly reminder to the question I gave you that you failed to give a straightforward answer to three times now (in case you forgot the question is wheter density have any relevance to the collapse (according to you that is, not Bazzant or anyone else)).

indestructible

Can you point out ANYONE that suggests that it was indestructable? Looking at the debris after the collapse I fail to see the upper block undented on top of the rubble. As far as I've seen every single authority suggests that the upper block took as much of a beating as the lower block in the impact since they were made of the same stuff and therefore equal in strength.

mass (an upper block) is dropped and destroyed something much bigger. What happened to this upper block afterwards? Did it disappear? When, where? It is a fantastic mass.

Answered above I think? The upper block shattered in the smaller parts that was found on top of GZ.

Another example. I drop a 100 kgs steel block on you. Afterwards, when you have been crushed, I retrieve my 100 kgs steel block from the mess that were you, so I can drop it on someone else.

Another example, aliens accidently swapped your sense of logic for a 100 kg steel block.

Seriously, how about coming up with examples that makes sense for a change?

What happened to your 30 000 tons?

Well, they didn't belong to me, but drop 30 000 tons from that height, observe it smash into the lower part of the same strength and pretty much everyone with half a brain realise what will happen.

[Architect]

Heiwa,

Tynnwyd llun o griw o ddisgyblion Ysgol Penrallt, Pwllheli ar ddiwrnod cau'r ysgol am byth ym 1988. Lle aeth pawb ar ôl hynny?

Newyddion da o lawenydd mawr i Eileen wrth i'w chynnig ar Benrhewl gael ei dderbyn, ond beth fydd ymateb Sioned?

[cloudshipsrule]

It is a fantastic mass.


You are quite right, it was a fantastic mass. My guess is you cannot begin to fathom the sheer breadth and weight of said mass.

[johnny karate]

In all fairness, didn't he say he was a naval architect who was qualified in structural engineering.

I don't think there's anything remotely fair about that.

Anyone who seriously makes the analogy he's made has no right to use the word "engineer" and their own name in the same sentence unless the words "couldn't be further from being" appear between them.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Tynnwyd llun o griw o ddisgyblion Ysgol Penrallt, Pwllheli ar ddiwrnod cau'r ysgol am byth ym 1988. Lle aeth pawb ar ôl hynny?

Newyddion da o lawenydd mawr i Eileen wrth i'w chynnig ar Benrhewl gael ei dderbyn, ond beth fydd ymateb Sioned?

Cumbry ambeth!

[Heiwa]

Global collapse DID occur.

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that the assumptions made in Bazant's paper:

A) Had any effect on the real-world collapse.

B) Aren't in favor of collapse prevention.

Please provide your own scenario and/or the necessary calculations to back up either statement. I'm not even asking for both. One or the other will do for now.

Read my article! Start at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm#AB

[Architect]

Cumbry ambeth!

???!???

Gyda'r Gwanwyn yn agosáu a'r tywydd ar droi croesawn Siân Lloyd i'r stiwdio i drafod pob dim dan haul! Cawn gyfle i wrando ar fersiwn unigryw Cate Le Bon o'r gân enwog 'Tocyn' gan Brân


ETA:
Mae diwrnod priodas Dai a Diane wedi gwawrio, ond nid yw pethau'n rhedeg yn esmwyth o bell ffordd.

[Architect]

Mason-Free Party: Keep taking the pills.

[DC]

search 911 dvd on ebay
DR.MORGAN REYNOLDS - "WHAT PLANES?"

THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT DVD YOU WILL EVER WATCH ON WHAT REALLY BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS AND PROVES WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT NO PLANES HIT THE TWIN TOWERS!



SEVERAL HOURS OF TRUELY ASTOUNDING MATERIAL THAT SHATTER THE OFFICIAL STORY.DR JUDY WOOD AND DR MORGAN REYNOLDS REVEAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC AND PERHAPS NEVER WILL BY OUR GOVERNMENTS.

SO PLEASE BUY THE DVD AND MAKE COPIES AND GET THE TRUTH OUT. . . SEE THE LINK BELOW FOR DETAILED PRESENTATION



DVD ALSO INCLUDES DR.JUDY WOOD'S TALK: 9-11 THE NEW HIROSHIMA AND WHY DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS MAY HAVE BEEN THE LIKELIEST CAUSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSE
At the end of the first show, a caller said, “This is a revelation beyond revelations…this trumps everything…If this story ever gets out, it will change the course of the United States’ and the whole world’s history.”

Another caller said during the second show, “I am thinking that these revelations we are hearing this morning should have the people so excited and so outraged that they should be flooding the lines to their congressmen and news people to get this message out as the number one story of the year.”

THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT DVD YOU WILL EVER WATCH ON WHAT REALLY BROUGHT DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS.

SEVERAL HOURS OF TRUELY ASTOUNDING MATERIAL THAT SHATTER THE OFFICIAL STORY.SCIENTISTS LIKE DR JUDY WOOD AND JOHN HUTCHISON REVEAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC AND PERHAPS NEVER WILL BY OUR GOVERNMENTS.

SO PLEASE BUY THE DVD AND MAKE COPIES AND GET THE TRUTH OUT. . . here is a brief overview of what the DVD contains. . .

Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel
On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(PRLog.Org) – Jan 30, 2008 – Washington DC, USA - In two appearances on a Washington DC Pacifica Radio Station (14th and 18th January 2008), WPFW, on a show hosted by Author and Political Commentator Ambrose I. Lane, Sr., Dr. Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and John Hutchison, experimental scientist, discussed how photographic and video evidence suggest that the World Trade Centre (WTC) towers were destroyed using Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). Many of the observed effects resemble those seen in John Hutchison’s experiments.

In early January 2008, Wood posted a new study on her website (), which relates effects seen in photographs taken before, during and after the destruction of the WTC complex, to effects seen in Hutchison’s ongoing experiments. Wood and Hutchison co-authored the study.

John Hutchison is a Canadian inventor and experimental scientist who has been working with “field effects” for almost 30 years. The Hutchison Effect is a collection of phenomena discovered accidentally by John Hutchison in 1979 during attempts to reproduce the work of Nikola Tesla. Hutchison uses radio frequency and electrostatic sources. The Hutchison Effect occurs in a volume of space where the beams intersect and interfere. The results are levitation of heavy objects, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood, anomalous melting (without heating) of metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metal samples.

Hutchison has reproduced his experiments many times and the results are recorded on video and have been included in a number of TV documentaries that focus on unusual scientific experiments. Hutchison’s metal samples have been repeatedly tested by scientists, including a group at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, confirming Hutchison Effects.

The article by Wood and Hutchison (documents effects and events seen in the vicinity of the World Trade Centre and compares these with observed characteristics of the Hutchison Effect.

The observed effects include:

“Weird Fires” - The fires seen near the badly damaged cars do not seem to ignite nearby office paper. Some photos show firefighters walking very close to or even through the fires. A video by John Hutchison shows similar looking “fires” on a model metal boat.

Bent Beams and “Jellification” - Samples that Hutchison produced show very unusual effects on metal. Sometimes the metal “jellifies,” turning soft and losing form, leading to severe bending or fracturing of the sample. Sometimes samples erupt from the centre and sometimes they turn to dust, similar to what happened to the WTC on 9/11.

Ongoing reactions - Hutchison’s samples often show an ongoing reaction, even after the energy field is removed. This “non-self-quenching” reaction seems to occur at the nuclear level. This also appears to be happening at Ground Zero (GZ). Dr. Wood’s study suggests that the WTC site is still being “decontaminated,” with trucks moving dirt into and out of the site, while “hosing down operations” continue, which Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson photographed and recorded on video in January 2008.

Transmutation - Sometimes materials subjected to the Hutchison Effect seem to change at a molecular or even atomic level. This could be the explanation for the apparent rapid rusting at GZ, where steel rusts like iron. Also, some photographs show unusual effects on the aluminium cladding used on the twin towers that look similar to effects produced on Hutchison’s aluminum samples.

no planes........ :covereyes

[mason-free party]

trouble with you guys on here you are either too dumb to see the real evidence or you are paid shills...which one is it?

always checktheevidence.com

[mason-free party]

with the exception of mr cheney of course;)

[TheRedWorm]

Mason, please do not post advertisements here. If you continue to do so, I will have to report you.

[mason-free party]

Edit for civility

[TheRedWorm]

Hey, relax. It was a (relatively) friendly warning. I don't want you to get banned after only 10 posts.

[mason-free party]

well lets just sit down and look at the evidence ...tell me how does an aluminium plane penetrate through thick steel leaving no wreckage?and i don't mean an intact rubber tyre on the walkway which would have been vapourised by the fireball if it was part of the fantasy plane

[DC]

well lets just sit down and look at the evidence ...tell me how does an aluminium plane penetrate through thick steel leaving no wreckage?

how can water slice true steel????

[TheRedWorm]

That is a topic for another thread, and I can create one for you if you'd like. Just so long as you cease posting advertisements.

[DGM]

well lets just sit down and look at the evidence ...tell me how does an aluminium plane penetrate through thick steel leaving no wreckage?and i don't mean an intact rubber tyre on the walkway which would have been vapourised by the fireball if it was part of the fantasy plane
Kinetic energy and there was wreckage.

[cloudshipsrule]

trouble with you guys on here you are either too dumb to see the real evidence or you are paid shills...which one is it?

Anyone elses check show up late this month? This is the 3rd time since 9/11, damn it.

[Architect]

We use bank giro transfers, mate. Get with the programme!

[DGM]

Mason-free's taking a vacation now.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110629

[MarkCorrigan]

Mason-free's taking a vacation now.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110629

That was quick. Then again, it wasn't exactly a surprise. He turned up in the Kosovo thread for crying out loud.

[Hornit]

I just had to come back into the thread after having my initial question properly answered on I think the first page. I'm shocked and proud that a thread I started has such legs!

Im still deeply involved in debunking over at peakoil.com and its a daunting but enjoyable task. The thing I find the most remarkable is how the same stories/arguments keep cropping up every few months as new truther kiddies find this stuff online.

Sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall, but I just cant tear myself away from the challenge of refuting woo.

[stateofgrace]

I just had to come back into the thread after having my initial question properly answered on I think the first page. I'm shocked and proud that a thread I started has such legs!

Im still deeply involved in debunking over at peakoil.com and its a daunting but enjoyable task. The thing I find the most remarkable is how the same stories/arguments keep cropping up every few months as new truther kiddies find this stuff online.

Sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall, but I just cant tear myself away from the challenge of refuting woo.

This thread has taught me one thing. That being the next time I buy a plastic BBQ table and invite my friends over I will reinforce it, to ensure it does not suffer global collapse. Rest assured that if anybody over loads my new plastic BBQ table with pork chops, grilled steaks and over burnt burgers I will secretly plant lots of silent explosives that will detonate the moment I see any sign of buckling.

I will save my plastic BBQ table at all cost.

Seriously, keep fighting the good fight, don't bang your head too hard, at the end of the day all you have to do is look at this thread to see the absolute absurdity of your opponents.

Stateofgrace.

[Architect]

No, we use explosive reinforcement in the tables. Just wire it up, and away you go....

[Architect]

Heiwa

(cough)

Caneuon y grwp bytholwyrdd Hogia'r Wyddfa sy'n cael sylw Huw Chiswell a Meinir Gwilym yn y rhaglen heno. Gyda pherfformiadau gan Rhys Meirion, Brigyn, Rhian Owen a Phlant Ysgol Dolbadarn???

Roedd y fuddugoliaeth ddiweddar yn Stadiwm y Mileniwm yn hwb seicolegol enfawr i’r Gweilch. Wedi’r cyfan, mae llwyddiant yn magu llwyddiant. Ond mae’r Saracens gyda’r fantais o chwarae gartref, ac yn gwybod beth i’w ddisgwyl y tro hwn, meddai Gareth.

[Architect]

Heiwa

(cough cough)

Mae Iolo Williams yn chwilio am fywyd gwyllt sy'n byw yng nghysgod dyn ac yn darganfod dyfrgwn yn chwarae ger y Cob ym Mhorthmadog?

Cynyrchiadau Ceidiog Creations a Sianel Blant Al Jazeera yn ymuno i gynhyrchu ail gyfres newydd sbon o'r rhaglen i blant??

[Zorglub]

This thread has taught me one thing. That being the next time I buy a plastic BBQ table and invite my friends over I will reinforce it, to ensure it does not suffer global collapse. Rest assured that if anybody over loads my new plastic BBQ table with pork chops, grilled steaks and over burnt burgers I will secretly plant lots of silent explosives that will detonate the moment I see any sign of buckling.

I will save my plastic BBQ table at all cost.

Seriously, keep fighting the good fight, don't bang your head too hard, at the end of the day all you have to do is look at this thread to see the absolute absurdity of your opponents.

Stateofgrace.
Don't forget to cover it all up by using a hologram of a drunk neighbour, running dog or suchlike crashing into the table. Or, you could edit the video of the party and put the dog/neighbour in the shoot later on. Your friends will if course stand by your version as you have a film proving how the table collapse. Film=unquestionable truth no matter what you might have thought you saw.
Tip: don't try this in France. They have the most cunning engineers you will ever meet.

[Minadin]

Tip: don't try this in France. They have the most cunning engineers you will ever meet.

Ah, yes. That explains the Panama Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal). Apparently, the only worse place to attempt such a stunt would be the shipyards of Sweden.

[rwguinn]

Ah, yes. That explains the Panama Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal). Apparently, the only worse place to attempt such a stunt would be the shipyards of Sweden.

I object to the use of "cunning" to describe any true engineer.
Clever, perhaps.
Meticulous, Ok.
Dogged and determined, yes.
Cunning implies deceit. and numbers don't lie, except in the hands of statisticians, lawyers, and twoofers.
so there!:p
:D
You may label this the "no true Engineer" fallacy, if you wish.

[SpitfireIX]

I object to the use of "cunning" to describe any true engineer.
Clever, perhaps.
Meticulous, Ok.
Dogged and determined, yes.
Cunning implies deceit. and numbers don't lie, except in the hands of statisticians, lawyers, and twoofers.
so there!:p
:D
You may label this the "no true Engineer" fallacy, if you wish.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1706047fac2835f0ab.jpg

"I have a cunning plan, m'lord." :p