Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[KreeL]

your thinking of electricity. The force of gravity only pulls downward. If it were to take the easiest path, that would mean things would have to move laterally to find the easiest path. How does gravity do that?

Your own everyday life experience should tell you this. If you drop a bowling ball on the top of a table, the path of least resistance would be around the table, not through it...but is this what the bowling ball does? No. It falls directly on the table, which is not the path of least resistance, but the direct path downward.

rofl

[FineWine]

Garbage in, garbage out. Your premise is entirely absurd and irrelevant.

The top part did nbot "gain" mass in the strictest sense, nor did it need to, but parts of the mass from the parts of the building it destroyed on the way down joined it in its rampage through the succeding floors. If you drop 5X onto 1X and break 1X loose, you now have 6X moving along the same course. If the next floor can only withstand 2X, where is the arresting mechanism?

This is a wonderfully simple and clear explanation of what happened on 9/11. It is amazing that Heiwa cannot grasp it.

[FineWine]

rofl

Laughing is easy. Thinking requires effort. One of Heiwa's absurdities was just blown out of the water. You didn't notice.

[Typicallucas]

If you had half a brain you would know that ships are not buildings and propellers are not gravity.

This is rhetorical right?

I'm not 100% sure which definition of rhetorical you are using... but Heiwa really does compare ships+propellers to WTC+gravity. He doesn't just compare, he says they are the same.

I didn't just make that up.

ETA: Not everything here is rhetorical. Some of it is right, some of it is wrong. Most of what Heiwa writes is nonsense, a complete fabrication, or plain old wrong.

[Typicallucas]

Your thinking of electricity. The force of gravity only pulls downward. If it were to take the easiest path, that would mean things would have to move laterally to find the easiest path. How does gravity do that?

Your own everyday life experience should tell you this. If you drop a bowling ball on the top of a table, the path of least resistance would be around the table, not through it...but is this what the bowling ball does? No. It falls directly on the table, which is not the path of least resistance, but the direct path downward.

Nice job. You're right gravity "taking the path of least resistance" is utter nonsense

Garbage in, garbage out. Your premise is entirely absurd and irrelevant.


Good one, although now that I think about it even good info comes out garbage through Heiwa's filter. Baby Jesus knows we've fed him enough rational arguments, but all we get back is complete mush.

There is just the of chance that someone will stumble across his nattering and take it for sound science, unless someone points out the woo oozing out around the edges.

For this reason I think we owe it to the good name of the JREF to combat his every inane rant so that his unfounded pseudo-science doesn't remain on Randi's forums uncontested.

[Furcifer]

I'm not 100% sure which definition of rhetorical you are using... but Heiwa really does compare ships+propellers to WTC+gravity. He doesn't just compare, he says they are the same.

I didn't just make that up.

ETA: Not everything here is rhetorical. Some of it is right, some of it is wrong. Most of what Heiwa writes is nonsense, a complete fabrication, or plain old wrong.

I meant it in the sense that all the questions being asked already have an answer, and we know it.

Cynnically of course.

[Heiwa]

I'm not 100% sure which definition of rhetorical you are using... but Heiwa really does compare ships+propellers to WTC+gravity. He doesn't just compare, he says they are the same.

I didn't just make that up.

ETA: Not everything here is rhetorical. Some of it is right, some of it is wrong. Most of what Heiwa writes is nonsense, a complete fabrication, or plain old wrong.

Yes, when a big ship collides with something more kinetic energy and momentum may be involved than when WTC 1 top part drops on the lower part. So it is quite helpful to compare what happens. And the first thing you observe is that weaker structural elements adjacent to the collision interface fail first.

Weaker structural elements are definitely not crushing down stronger structural elements as suggested in WTC 1 (thin floors crushing strong columns).

So you have to work from there, e.g. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

If you find any nonsense there, something completely fabricated or plain wrong, just copy paste it and tell what has to be corrected.

[Typicallucas]

Yes, when a big ship collides with something more kinetic energy and momentum may be involved than when WTC 1 top part drops on the lower part. So it is quite helpful to compare what happens. And the first thing you observe is that weaker structural elements adjacent to the collision interface fail first.

Weaker structural elements are definitely not crushing down stronger structural elements as suggested in WTC 1 (thin floors crushing strong columns).

So you have to work from there, e.g. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

If you find any nonsense there, something completely fabricated or plain wrong, just copy paste it and tell what has to be corrected.

I've stopped reading your replies, sorry. It is as futile as trying to understand reason with a random jumble of letters.

[KreeL]

The faithbased consensus is that they don't understand The Heiwa Challenge{tm}. In fact mackey is probably the only one that DOES understand it, and he won't attempt to make a model because his credibility can't take too many more hits.

For you others, like the one directly above this post. If you don't understand it, you don't have to read it. If you don't read it, you can still copy and paste the post? JREF 101.

[twinstead]

The faithbased consensus is that they don't understand The Heiwa Challenge{tm}. In fact mackey is probably the only one that DOES understand it, and he won't attempt to make a model because his credibility can't take too many more hits.

For you others, like the one directly above this post. If you don't understand it, you don't have to read it. If you don't read it, you can still copy and paste the post? JREF 101.


Yea. Ignorant arguments from incredulity still ROCK.

You are claiming victory on a relatively obscure internet forum. Good job. You think you got mojo? As long as when I turn off my fireFox browser and you disappear, you LOSE.

Do you have a problem with that?

[KreeL]

Yea. Ignorant arguments from incredulity still ROCK.

You are claiming victory on a relatively obscure internet forum. Good job. You think you got mojo? As long as when I turn off my fireFox browser and you disappear, you LOSE.

Do you have a problem with that?

I've stopped reading your replies, sorry. It is as futile as trying to understand a random jumble of letters.

JREF 101. See? I'm learning. :P

[Typicallucas]

The faithbased consensus is that they don't understand The Heiwa Challenge{tm}. In fact mackey is probably the only one that DOES understand it, and he won't attempt to make a model because his credibility can't take too many more hits.

For you others, like the one directly above this post. If you don't understand it, you don't have to read it. If you don't read it, you can still copy and paste the post? JREF 101.

I don't base my beliefs on faith. I base them on reality.

I have read Heiwa's claims, posts, and two couple of his web pages. I understand his English(mostly), but his hypothesis is wrong, his physics is garbage, and he is unwilling to listen or learn. I refuse to read any more of his writing. So sue me if I quoted him in my response.

ETA: If you have a problem with people not reading the posts of others why don't you take your beloved Heiwa to task? He's the king of not reading posts (or at least pretending not to.)

[KreeL]

Take The Heiwa Challenge{tm} then. Should be easy enough for you to do. You claim his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen.

Prove it;)... and get rich!

[Typicallucas]

I can think of better things to do with my time than take part in a poorly structured challenge to make a analogue of the World Trade Center to test Heiwa's absurd theory based on his "intuition" for an imaginary prize.

If Heiwa wants to claim the building was demolished as part of a government conspiracy then he should start there instead of trying to "prove" that a "one-way crush down is impossible."

Have you noticed that Heiwa hasn't built any scale models himself? If he is just going to rave like a lunatic not many people are going to line up to participate in his challenge. Sorry, but what a thoroughly stupid challenge it is too. Unbelievable. Dwop pawt C on pawt A durrrr fwum a hite of H, see it if bounces! wheeeee!

By the way, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to use trademark notices on unregistered goods and services. ;)

[KreeL]

A million dollars isn't worth your time? Or maybe you are intelligent enough to know that it can't be done and don't want to waste your time. Either way, you fail to prove "his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen".

"Dwop pawt C on pawt A durrrr fwum a hite of H, see it if bounces! wheeeee!" - This must be some more of the faithbased babytalk. You even fail at being annoying because it's kinda cute.

Not surprising in the slightest. JREF 101.

[Typicallucas]

A fake million dollars isn't worth your time?You forgot a word. The answer is yes.
Or maybe you are intelligent enough to know that it can't be done and don't want to waste your time.Yawn.
Either way, you fail to prove "his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen".
I don't make it a practice to disprove fiction. Besides, Heiwa proves this all without my help.

You sure are a big fan of Heiwa.

[Heiwa]

If Heiwa wants to claim the building was demolished as part of a government conspiracy then he should start there instead of trying to "prove" that a "one-way crush down is impossible."

Have you noticed that Heiwa hasn't built any scale models himself? If he is just going to rave like a lunatic not many people are going to line up to participate in his challenge. Sorry, but what a thoroughly stupid challenge it is too. Unbelievable. Dwop pawt C on pawt A durrrr fwum a hite of H, see it if bounces! wheeeee!

;)

Government conspiracy? I would say that NIST is incompetent to explain the WTC 1 structural destruction. Energy applied exceeded the strain energy that the structure could absorb and global collapse ensued! Nonsense. Embarassing. 100's of NIST engineers making fools of themselves! Kaiser, Sunder, Gross, etc. And nobody really reacts! ASCE is silent like a mouse.

I have presented several structures and dropped a part C of it on remainder part A (C<10A) from various heights. No collapse as the energy applied was too small or the strain energy absorbed too big. Just bounces! Increasing the drop height (energy input to become BIG) C is always destroyed first as it can absorb too little strain energy and A is not really one-way crushed down.

And that's Why a one-way Crush down is not possible for any structure of any size and scale. I think it is time to close this thread now. More than 1000 posts ... and all sensibile posts agree with topic.

It seem only religious fundamentalist integrists are still believing that a one way Crush down is possible ... and why not? They really have funny beliefs.

[TheRedWorm]

Hey KreeL, if you are so confident in "heiwa," how do you explain his non-response to the following:

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?


And, just for kicks, can you answer those questions?

[WildCat]

I still want Heiwa to explain how a sabot projectile weighing less than 11 pounds can destroy a 40-ton tank...

[Typicallucas]

How does it feel to be ignored?

[GlennB]

I have presented several structures and dropped a part C of it on remainder part A (C<10A) from various heights. No collapse as the energy applied was too small or the strain energy absorbed too big. Just bounces! Increasing the drop height (energy input to become BIG) C is always destroyed first as it can absorb too little strain energy and A is not really one-way crushed down.



Heiwa ----

If I drop a living mouse 2x its body length onto solid ground, will it be seriously hurt?

If I drop a living cat 2x its body length onto solid ground, what will happen to the animal?

If I drop a living elephant 2x its body length onto solid ground, what will happen to the animal?

I await your frivolous reply, which will likely ignore all known engineering principles. Or you could shock us all and actually address the question. If you do give a serious answer, then we can proceed.

[Typicallucas]

Hey KreeL, if you are so confident in "heiwa," how do you explain his non-response to the following:
...
And, just for kicks, can you answer those questions?

Is it possible KreeL and Heiwa are the same person? I only think this because of the similarity in the accusations of religious fundamentalism from both of them.

[FineWine]

Yes, when a big ship collides with something more kinetic energy and momentum may be involved than when WTC 1 top part drops on the lower part. So it is quite helpful to compare what happens. And the first thing you observe is that weaker structural elements adjacent to the collision interface fail first.

Weaker structural elements are definitely not crushing down stronger structural elements as suggested in WTC 1 (thin floors crushing strong columns).

So you have to work from there, e.g. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

If you find any nonsense there, something completely fabricated or plain wrong, just copy paste it and tell what has to be corrected.


It's funny that you never have to read very far in your posts to find the nonsense. Nobody says that the collapsing mass of the building CRUSHED the columns. The columns BROKE at the welds. You are aware of this, aren't you?

[FineWine]

The faithbased consensus is that they don't understand The Heiwa Challenge{tm}. In fact mackey is probably the only one that DOES understand it, and he won't attempt to make a model because his credibility can't take too many more hits.

For you others, like the one directly above this post. If you don't understand it, you don't have to read it. If you don't read it, you can still copy and paste the post? JREF 101.


I haven't noticed any hits to Mr. Mackey's credibility. Can you tell us how his credibility has been challenged by people who do nothing but tell lies and invent absurd, fantastic parodies of science?

[FineWine]

Heiwa ----

If I drop a living mouse 2x its body length onto solid ground, will it be seriously hurt?

If I drop a living cat 2x its body length onto solid ground, what will happen to the animal?

If I drop a living elephant 2x its body length onto solid ground, what will happen to the animal?

I await your frivolous reply, which will likely ignore all known engineering principles. Or you could shock us all and actually address the question. If you do give a serious answer, then we can proceed.


I tried comparing elephants to mice and Heiwa acted like he couldn't understand what I was getting at. Maybe he is faking and he really does realize how absurd his theories are, or maybe he really is as dense as he appears. Only he knows for sure. In either case, I'm starting to agree with the poster who wrote that trying to reason with him wastes everyone's time.

[FineWine]

Government conspiracy? I would say that NIST is incompetent to explain the WTC 1 structural destruction. Energy applied exceeded the strain energy that the structure could absorb and global collapse ensued! Nonsense. Embarassing. 100's of NIST engineers making fools of themselves! Kaiser, Sunder, Gross, etc. And nobody really reacts! ASCE is silent like a mouse.

I have presented several structures and dropped a part C of it on remainder part A (C<10A) from various heights. No collapse as the energy applied was too small or the strain energy absorbed too big. Just bounces! Increasing the drop height (energy input to become BIG) C is always destroyed first as it can absorb too little strain energy and A is not really one-way crushed down.

And that's Why a one-way Crush down is not possible for any structure of any size and scale. I think it is time to close this thread now. More than 1000 posts ... and all sensibile posts agree with topic.

It seem only religious fundamentalist integrists are still believing that a one way Crush down is possible ... and why not? They really have funny beliefs.

Your statement that HUNDREDS of NIST engineers and scientists are making fools of themselves tells you what you need to know. You are too blinded by your politics to see it. Yes, hundreds, even thousands, of real engineers see the matter one way while you see it another way. But ALL of them are wrong. You can't accept or even understand any of the corrections to your errors provided by the engineers here. So, who is right? Real scientists who test their work constantly or a guy who assumes his own infallibility? When you regard the rest of the world, including people who are smarter and know much more than you do, as being on the wrong foot, it's time for a little self-examination. But you've never attempted that.

[KreeL]

NIST performed their requirements exactly like Baghdad Bob. Interesting to note, both had faithbased followers.

[Typicallucas]

That's a load of bullsh*t

[aggle-rithm]

NIST performed their requirements exactly like Baghdad Bob. Interesting to note, both had faithbased followers.

You know what's ironic here? If I am to side with you and Heiwa on this matter, then I have to ask you what exactly it is i am supposed to believe.

[leftysergeant]

A million dollars isn't worth your time?

It would cost more than a million dollars to make a model that would have anywhere near the same physical properties of the towers.

Or maybe you are intelligent enough to know that it can't be done and don't want to waste your time. Either way, you fail to prove "his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen".

Neither he nor you have any room to talk about other people's intelligence. We are intelligent enough to know that the joints of Heiwa's models in no way resemble the joints of the WTC. He made the more absurd claim, i.e., thatthere is an arrresting mechanism, so it is up to him to demonstrate that there is an arresting mechanism.

"Dwop pawt C on pawt A durrrr fwum a hite of H, see it if bounces! wheeeee!" - This must be some more of the faithbased babytalk. You even fail at being annoying because it's kinda cute.

This mockery of the style of twoofers accurately reflects the level of maturity we see in twoofer theories.

[MIKILLINI]

Take The Heiwa Challenge{tm} then. Should be easy enough for you to do. You claim his hypothesis is wrong, his physics are garbage, and he won't listen.

Prove it;)... and get rich!

Who determined the Heiwa hypothesis (other than Heiwa himself) is empiricaly correct?

[leftysergeant]

And that's Why a one-way Crush down is not possible for any structure of any size and scale. I think it is time to close this thread now. More than 1000 posts ... and all sensibile posts agree with topic.

Utter rubbish. The Balzac-Vitry demolition proves you wrong.

Further, you just completely ignore the fact that the collapses occurred not because the columns were crushed, but because the floors that held them in place were smashed loose by an over-load.

Your modelling of the towers as ships colliding is BS because when ships collide, all the momentum built up over mioles of acceleration is spent in the initial impact, and there is not time for the screws, turning at full speed to restore that momentum, thus leaving the weight of the ships useless for further work. When two ships, their momentum spent, sit nose-to-nose, the weight of either is irrelevant to the other. Only if one still has power (and most engineers will immediately disengage the engines after a collision) does either continue to effect the other. If one ship has power, it can move the other.

The stuff that fell from one floor to another in the towers continued to effect the floors below because it represented a massive overload, even as a static load. That stuff was continuing to fall from above after the static overload limit was reached made it dynamic.

Once your ships have collided and stopped driving forward, all forces, if any, that they create are statiuc.

You get a ham-and-cheese-sandwich-at-a-Bar-Mitzvah fail.

[TheRedWorm]

Is it possible KreeL and Heiwa are the same person? I only think this because of the similarity in the accusations of religious fundamentalism from both of them.



Its not without the realm of probability...

[Heiwa]

Utter rubbish. The Balzac-Vitry demolition proves you wrong.

Further, you just completely ignore the fact that the collapses occurred not because the columns were crushed, but because the floors that held them in place were smashed loose by an over-load.

Your modelling of the towers as ships colliding is BS because when ships collide, all the momentum built up over mioles of acceleration is spent in the initial impact, and there is not time for the screws, turning at full speed to restore that momentum, thus leaving the weight of the ships useless for further work. When two ships, their momentum spent, sit nose-to-nose, the weight of either is irrelevant to the other. Only if one still has power (and most engineers will immediately disengage the engines after a collision) does either continue to effect the other. If one ship has power, it can move the other.

The stuff that fell from one floor to another in the towers continued to effect the floors below because it represented a massive overload, even as a static load. That stuff was continuing to fall from above after the static overload limit was reached made it dynamic.

Once your ships have collided and stopped driving forward, all forces, if any, that they create are statiuc.

You get a ham-and-cheese-sandwich-at-a-Bar-Mitzvah fail.

Sorry the Balzac-Vitry demolition is not a one-way crush down of any type. It is a controlled demolition of say 25% of the structure to initiate a drop of an upper part that is then destroyed in contact with a lower part, the latter not really totally destroyed. Thus no upper part is one-way crushing down anything there.

The challenge here is to produce a theoretical structural model in 3-D where an upper part C of said structure will one-way crush down the lower part A when C is dropped on A, where A>10C. Part A is supposed to be fixed to ground. As encouragement I have offered $1M to anybody who can produce said theoretical model.
This encouragement requires some clarifications, e.g. what constitues a one way crush down by part C of part A.

The structure A+C must first of all be initially stable, i.e. A carries C and all elements in the structure are under internal loads. Then C is detached from A and dropped on A from a specified height, e.g. a proportion of the height of C, let's say 1/10 of C or 1/100 of A.

The structural elements making up part A, there are both vertical and horizontal elements as structure is 3-D, each having a mass, must become detached from one another, so that they no longer represent the original structure. And this shall only be done by part C assisted by gravity.
Elements becoming loose in part A due to part C contacting them may assist in the one-way crush down.

The task includes to describe the initial energy available, the forces that develop at contact C/A, the deformations then produced and how failures of elements then develop. You should be able to trace the path of failures through part A so that all elements in A get detached from one another.

In another thread, The Heiwa Challenge, the task is just to produce one real structure A + C that can demonstrate the above without any theoretical considerations.

To be perfectly frank, both tasks are impossible as a part C of a bigger part A of same 3-D structure, cannot one-way crush down part A.

But you can always try to prove me wrong.

There are plenty of papers and software describing how to carry out the structural damage analysis of C colliding with A in The Journal of SNAJ (Society of Naval Architects of Japan) from 1990 onwards. Also in the magazine The Naval Architect of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London. With luck you may find an article by me.

[Typicallucas]

Did you guys hear something? :rolleyes:

[six7s]

Did you guys hear something? :rolleyes:That thunderous booming noise?

It was an echo from the mass of Heiwa's delusions crashing on his fundamental ignorance; a one-way crush down that was inevitable

[leftysergeant]

Did you guys hear something? :rolleyes:

Crickets in someone's ears? If you can hear someone else's ear crickets, does that mean you are schizo, too?

[ozeco41]

It's funny that you never have to read very far in your posts to find the nonsense. Nobody says that the collapsing mass of the building CRUSHED the columns. The columns BROKE at the welds. You are aware of this, aren't you?
That is the fundamental ambiguity of the OP which I have queried several times.

It is the base false premise for Heiwa, David S Chandler AND Tony Szamboti's false explanations.

And it has been explained to each of them many times and with clarity.

So they know the truth but continue to publish untruth.

[Heiwa]

That is the fundamental ambiguity of the OP which I have queried several times.

It is the base false premise for Heiwa, David S Chandler AND Tony Szamboti's false explanations.

And it has been explained to each of them many times and with clarity.

So they know the truth but continue to publish untruth.

A broken weld connection between two elements, e.g. columns, is a valid failure and it may be produced by gravity.

However, if an element has two welded connections and a gravity force manages to destroy one, the same gravity force cannot destroy the second one. You need another gravity force to do the job ... and it does not exist.

[BigAl]

A broken weld connection between two elements, e.g. columns, is a valid failure and it may be produced by gravity.

However, if an element has two welded connections and a gravity force manages to destroy one, the same gravity force cannot destroy the second one. You need another gravity force to do the job ... and it does not exist.

Cascading failure. As I understand it, this describes failure in all systems that consist of connected parts.

[ozeco41]

...However, if an element has two welded connections and a gravity force manages to destroy one, the same gravity force cannot destroy the second one. You need another gravity force to do the job ... and it does not exist.Utter nonsense.
If the connections are strength 1 and the weight falling under gravity is 5 it can break 2x1 at the same time OR 1 + 1 in sequence.

The falling mass at WTC 1 & 2 was many times the resisting capacity of the floor joist to column connectors to resist even if all had been impacted simultaneously.

[WildCat]

Utter nonsense.
If the connections are strength 1 and the weight falling under gravity is 5 it can break 2x1 at the same time OR 1 + 1 in sequence.
I think Heiwa is actually saying that the gravity is "used up" or something... :boggled:

[Heiwa]

I think Heiwa is actually saying that the gravity is "used up" or something... :boggled:

Or it missed the chance! A moving gravity force may break one element in one location but it needs plenty of luck to break same elemnt in a second location. The force is probably somewhere else!

And that's Why a one-way Crush down .... .

But you can always believe otherwise.

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

[BigAl]

Or it missed the chance! A moving gravity force may break one element in one location but it needs plenty of luck to break same elemnt in a second location. The force is probably somewhere else!



It always is. That's why it's called cascading failure.

[Typicallucas]

:hit:

[six7s]

A broken weld connection between two elements, e.g. columns, is a valid failure and it may be produced by gravity.

However, if an element has two welded connections and a gravity force manages to destroy one, the same gravity force cannot destroy the second one. You need another gravity force to do the job ... and it does not exist.Are you seriously suggesting that the force of momentum from several free-falling floors would be dissipated/absorbed/whatever by the welds designed to support the static mass?

[FineWine]

Are you seriously suggesting that the force of momentum from several free-falling floors would be dissipated/absorbed/whatever by the welds designed to support the static mass?



Yes, I now believe that, although it seems impossible for an engineer to think such nonsense, this is what he is saying. I asked him several times to explain what stops the collapsing mass from smashing through each floor it encounters. He babbles incoherently and drifts away. But he clearly thinks that SOMETHING stops the downward momentum. It is obvious to everyone else that nothing could possibly arrest the collapse, but his views are set in stone and nothing can shake him loose from his errors.

[Heiwa]

Yes, I now believe that, although it seems impossible for an engineer to think such nonsense, this is what he is saying. I asked him several times to explain what stops the collapsing mass from smashing through each floor it encounters. He babbles incoherently and drifts away. But he clearly thinks that SOMETHING stops the downward momentum. It is obvious to everyone else that nothing could possibly arrest the collapse, but his views are set in stone and nothing can shake him loose from his errors.

I can only repeat: Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

[twinstead]

I can only repeat: Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

Keep saying that Heiwa. Maybe someday it will actually be true.

[tsig]

Are you seriously suggesting that the force of momentum from several free-falling floors would be dissipated/absorbed/whatever by the welds designed to support the static mass?

There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.

[WildCat]

Yes, I now believe that, although it seems impossible for an engineer to think such nonsense, this is what he is saying. I asked him several times to explain what stops the collapsing mass from smashing through each floor it encounters. He babbles incoherently and drifts away. But he clearly thinks that SOMETHING stops the downward momentum. It is obvious to everyone else that nothing could possibly arrest the collapse, but his views are set in stone and nothing can shake him loose from his errors.
I can only repeat: Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?
"He babbles incoherently and drifts away."

QED

[WildCat]

There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.
I can hold a bullet in my hand, even toss it in the air and catch it.

So according to Heiwa, I could simply catch a bullet that somebody fires at me from a gun! No harm done...

[six7s]

There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.So a CTist's House of Cards will never fall, huh?

YvLkjuYunRw

[tsig]

I can hold a bullet in my hand, even toss it in the air and catch it.

So according to Heiwa, I could simply catch a bullet that somebody fires at me from a gun! No harm done...

Clearly not!! You used explosives. Glad you conceded CD.<insert words> there fore A cannot crush C!:)

Srsly I have looked as far as I can around that particular corner for that way lies madness.

[Heiwa]

There seems to be a lack of understanding of statics and dynamics. In wooland 10 lbs is 10lbs so if your structure can support 10lbs it can never be broken by that weight no matter what.

From this basic misunderstanding we get the top of the building bouncing or toppling off or getting stuck.

Yes, something like that. Take eleven pieces of structure each 10 lbs and put them on top of each other. A nice tower of 11 pieces! The bottom one carries 100 lbs, 2nd from bottom 90 lbs ... and the top one 0 lbs. The ground carries 110 lbs. The bottom one seems pretty strong! And the ground ... not to forget.
Now remove the top one that carries nothing and drop it on the other 10 pieces. What happens?

Evidently the top one just bounces or gets destroyed by the stronger pieces below.

You do not seriously believe that the #11 top piece can one-way crush down 10 pieces below? And what about the ground? Will #11 top piece destroy that too?

Now tell, again, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: (Heinrich) , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?*

*Who asks who, and why is this question relevant to many posters of this thread?

[FineWine]

Yes, something like that. Take eleven pieces of structure each 10 lbs and put them on top of each other. A nice tower of 11 pieces! The bottom one carries 100 lbs, 2nd from bottom 90 lbs ... and the top one 0 lbs. The ground carries 110 lbs. The bottom one seems pretty strong! And the ground ... not to forget.
Now remove the top one that carries nothing and drop it on the other 10 pieces. What happens?

Evidently the top one just bounces or gets destroyed by the stronger pieces below.

You do not seriously believe that the #11 top piece can one-way crush down 10 pieces below? And what about the ground? Will #11 top piece destroy that too?

Now tell, again, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: (Heinrich) , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?*

*Who asks who, and why is this question relevant to many posters of this thread?


Your act is boring. You're wrong. It's as simple as that. The engineers here have explained to you why you're wrong, but you can't understand them. You disagree with the hundreds of highly qualified experts consulted by NIST. You keep raving about religion (whatever that has to do with building collapses) and nobody is fooled. You just don't know what the heck you're talking about.

The part of the building that initially collapses adds more and more mass as the collapse continues. Nothing can possibly arrest it. What don't you get?

[Typicallucas]

I can only repeat...
Quoted for truth.

[PB2007]

Yes, something like that. Take eleven pieces of structure each 10 lbs and put them on top of each other. A nice tower of 11 pieces! The bottom one carries 100 lbs, 2nd from bottom 90 lbs ... and the top one 0 lbs. The ground carries 110 lbs. The bottom one seems pretty strong! And the ground ... not to forget.
Now remove the top one that carries nothing and drop it on the other 10 pieces. What happens?

Why do you keep trying to model this with solid "floors". Pizza boxes, blocks etc have one thing in common. They don't fall apart into sections easily. This seems to be the main thing you don't get. Block 11 doesn't have to overcome ALL of Block 10, just a bit of it. Then Block 11 and the little bit of Block 10 overcome another little bit of Block 10 and so on until Block 10 is completely overcome and the falling mass starts on a little bit of Block 9..... Stop thinking of each floor as a solid object and instead think of each floor as a mass comprising of different materials which will seperate and not as a wooden or concrete block....

We all notice you continue to evade the question of how a sabot can destroy a tank many 1000s times it mass, why you can toss and catch a bullet but will fail to catch a fired bullet and what happens if you place a brick on your head vs dropping it into your head from 2 feet..... I wonder why that is?

[six7s]

We all notice you continue to evade the question of how a sabot can destroy a tank many 1000s times it mass, why you can toss and catch a bullet but will fail to catch a fired bullet and what happens if you place a brick on your head vs dropping it into your head from 2 feet..... I wonder why that is?Maybe, in a radical departure from conjecture-based conclusion jumping, Heiwa has finally adopted actual trials - beginning with the brick experiment

[Furcifer]

Progressive failure has been observed, recorded, studied and documented. End of story.

[aggle-rithm]

I can only repeat:

And that, young Skywalker, is why you fail...

[Heiwa]

The part of the building that initially collapses adds more and more mass as the collapse continues. Nothing can possibly arrest it. What don't you get?

LOL! Now tell, again, how do you do it with the religion?

Nothing can arrest it! LOL!

[KreeL]

It's remarkable how their faithbased paradigm is so ingrained. Pretty much like having an invisible god-friend in their pocket. It's there, but they just can't show it.

ROFL

[six7s]

LOL!

ROFL

Funny, huh?

But looks ain't everything

On a slightly more serious note...

How about - instead of snickering like a couple of nine year-olds* - you explain (in simple, yet grown-up terms) how you know that the one floor immediately below impact was able to resist the free-falling force of the floors above impact

TYIA :)



_______________________
* If you are actually nine, please tell a fart joke instead

[PB2007]

deleted

[aggle-rithm]

LOL! ...LOL!


ROFL

You guys really seem to enjoy life!

[aggle-rithm]

deleted

Thanks, PB2007. This thread would be so much more informative if we had more posts like this. ;)

[aggle-rithm]

Pretty much like having an invisible god-friend in their pocket.


Or a sock puppet!

[beachnut]

It's remarkable how their faithbased paradigm is so ingrained. Pretty much like having an invisible god-friend in their pocket. It's there, but they just can't show it.

ROFL
Are you an engineer? If so why are you failing to make a post on topic and clear this up for us? Got any evidence or is your entire bag of trick failed talk about the faith-based group you are in and try, yet fail, to project onto others?

Is the gravity collapse of the WTC possible? And what is the energy release in each tower due to gravity alone? Show us that super engineering skills you have to educate all over us and save this thread.

[KreeL]

Is Bazant an engineer?

Where's his model?

[beachnut]

Is Bazant an engineer?

Where's his model?
Is he?


* C.E., Czech Technical University, Prague, Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering) 1960
* Ph.D. (in mechanics)., Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague 1963
* Postgraduate diploma in Physics, Charles University, Prague 1966
* Docent habil., Czech Technical University, Prague 1967
* S.E. 1970, Illinois Registered Structural Engineer
Research

Professor Bazant's interest spans mechanics of materials and structures, structural safety and engineering applications. The current investigations include some fundamental problems in the field of quasibrittle fracture and damage mechanics, fracture scaling and its asymptotics, size effects, probabilistic mechanics and extreme Can you say probabilistic?

I forgot 911Truth just talks and spews delusions.
So I looked it up for you since you are spewing lies and delusions all over the forum; you are great spammer, but I guess engineering is not your bag.

Well is Bazant an engineer?

[KreeL]

So where's his model?:confused:

Surely you have faith enough to believe he has one, right?

[beachnut]

So where's his model?:confused:

Surely you have faith enough to believe he has one, right?
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Go ahead do some of your delusion conclusion work on this. Please explain what he got wrong and why his model is wrong.

You never knew he was an engineer? How can you be so bad at this 911 stuff? Do you need help; I am an engineer? So what do you have? Some physics? What is the primary energy source for CD?

[KreeL]

Without even looking, is that his little pencil drawings?

edited to add: Indeed it IS his pencil drawings. ROFL

I guess that's where you got the "Foot of God" theory.

[beachnut]

Without even looking, is that his little pencil drawings?
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

The model is in the paper. If you understood engineering it would be clear to you. You failed to read it?

Do you have any clues beside your failed delusional talk about nothing?

Tell me what is wrong with the model; it is in the paper I gave you. Speak up or you have failed@!

[KreeL]

I've read all of his theories. They change every other year.

Come to think of it, so do yours.

[beachnut]

I've read all of his theories. They change every other year.

Come to think of it, so do yours.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

No you can't refute any thing they have because you have not even told me what is wrong.

Pick an equations and show me what is wrong.

BTW, this is another paper in a real Journal no your 911Truth claptrap journals you have to pay.

you can't understand this paper either

You failed to find the model in the first paper and you will not understand the second paper. You have no clue what forms a model can take.

Now KreeL will talk and say it is all wrong, but he can't get specific due to zero understanding of both papers. No engineering skills just repeating the same old talk from 911Truth delusion producers.

[aggle-rithm]

Without even looking, is that his little pencil drawings?

edited to add: Indeed it IS his pencil drawings. ROFL

I guess that's where you got the "Foot of God" theory.

It's easy to poke holes in a theory if you don't understand it. It's more difficult to propose an alternate theory that makes more sense.

Do you have one? Probably. Will we ever hear what it is? No. Because as soon as you say what YOU think happened, you and everyone else will instantly realize how insane and ridiculous-sounding it is.

In the meantime, we'll go with the little pencil drawings.

[KreeL]

First it was "THE PANCAKE" -- Then it was "FLOOR TRUSS FAILURE" -- Now it's "FOOT OF GOD".

Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL

[beachnut]

First it was "THE PANCAKE" -- Then it was "FLOOR TRUSS FAILURE" -- Now it's "FOOT OF GOD".

Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL
Source.
Prove it.
How long will you take to provide the page number in the paper?


You proved in one failed post you never read either paper.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Which paper have you read?

Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL Show me! Good luck.

You repeat failed dirt dumb ideas from 911Truth. Good job exposing your lack of evidence.

[aggle-rithm]

First it was "THE PANCAKE" -- Then it was "FLOOR TRUSS FAILURE" -- Now it's "FOOT OF GOD".

Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL

...and your alternate theory that makes more sense is...?

[KreeL]

About 24 hours because I have to go to bed right now and then off to work. In the meantime, look up and read his first report. Perhaps it was Zhou's fault, but Bazant should have caught that blunder --being that he's an engineer and all.

Don't lose faith, man, just give him another 6 months and he'll come up with a new one.

[beachnut]

...
Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL
Show me.

Your statement is delusional.

Why do you post lies about 911?

Does this mean you are not going to get more specific than telling lies about Bazant? No engineering stuff?

[tsig]

Or a sock puppet!

It's a regular hosiery hootenanny.

[aggle-rithm]

About 24 hours because I have to go to bed right now and then off to work. In the meantime, look up and read his first report. Perhaps it was Zhou's fault, but Bazant should have caught that blunder --being that he's an engineer and all.

Don't lose faith, man, just give him another 6 months and he'll come up with a new one.

Wait a minute, I thought these theories were all faith-based. If so, wouldn't they stay the same, regardless of the evidence? Why would they change as more evidence comes to light?

More importantly, why would you complain about this?

[leftysergeant]

I can only repeat: Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

Actually, your position is the more religous, and, if I may point it out, more superstititous belief. You seem to be positing that Xkg, after falling onto another Xkg and breaking it loose will still hit the next floor weighing only Xkg, rather than 2Xkg.

That doesn't even make sense to the dyscalculic among us.

[FineWine]

LOL! Now tell, again, how do you do it with the religion?

Nothing can arrest it! LOL!


Stop giggling like a demented child. You are the religious fanatic here, clinging to false beliefs that have been completely refuted. You pretend that the columns were crushed. They weren't and you got caught. You pretend that when the part of the building starting with the impact floors collapses it doesn't add the mass of each successive floor it encounters. This was shown to be nonsense. You pretend that the kinetic energy of the collapse isn't sufficient to overcome resistance. Real engineers have shown that it was far in excess of what was needed. You pretend that progressive collapses don't happen and you were proved wrong. You don't get anything right and you can't learn from anyone who knows more than you do.

I don't know how to use religion to argue science. Your attempts to do so have failed miserably.

[FineWine]

Funny, huh?

But looks ain't everything

On a slightly more serious note...

How about - instead of snickering like a couple of nine year-olds* - you explain (in simple, yet grown-up terms) how you know that the one floor immediately below impact was able to resist the free-falling force of the floors above impact

TYIA :)



_______________________
* If you are actually nine, please tell a fart joke instead


I ask this question over and over. Heiwa and his little friend giggle like schoolgirls then run away. What is supposed to stop the collapse? Neither the fake engineer or his clueless echo have any idea.

[KreeL]

Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Momentum, and lack of explosives (since you have faith none were present).

[six7s]

KreeL, your repeated use of the term 'religious' is immensely stupid

Mind you, so is everything else you say

[FineWine]

Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Momentum, and lack of explosives (since you have faith none were present).


But you don't know anything at all about science or engineering. The real engineers here have explained your guru's errors many times. You can only parrot what Heiwa says and he's absurdly wrong. You spout nonsense and make no effort to understand.
No, the laws conservation of energy or momentum do not explain how a collapse that increases in mass and momentum magically stops. Stop mindlessly bleating and try to learn.

[aggle-rithm]

But you don't know anything at all about science or engineering. The real engineers here have explained your guru's errors many times. You can only parrot what Heiwa says and he's absurdly wrong. You spout nonsense and make no effort to understand.
No, the laws conservation of energy or momentum do not explain how a collapse that increases in mass and momentum magically stops. Stop mindlessly bleating and try to learn.

Sorry, you forgot the Truther Creed:

DEATH BEFORE LEARNING!

[FineWine]

Sorry, you forgot the Truther Creed:

DEATH BEFORE LEARNING!

I can see how sane people who spend a lot of time here can get very frustrated. You have one guy who claims to be an engineer and all he does is babble about "religion" and "fundamentalists," while being incapable of understanding a word the engineers write. Another guy advertises his total ignorance about science every time he posts and he invokes the laws of conservation of energy and momentum without having a clue about either.

Floors of the building are collapsing, adding mass and momentum as they proceed. What sort of magic is supposed to stop them?

Sheesh!

[Typicallucas]

Maybe, in a radical departure from conjecture-based conclusion jumping, Heiwa has finally adopted actual trials - beginning with the brick experiment

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=191&pictureid=1030

[six7s]

http://www.thebricktestament.com/king_saul/david_decapitates_goliath/1s17_49a.jpg
www.thebricktestament.com (http://www.thebricktestament.com/king_saul/david_decapitates_goliath/1s17_49a.html)

[tfk]

Is Bazant an engineer?

Where's his model?
Why haven't you looked this up for yourself previously?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html

Note: Do you have any idea what it means to be elected to the National Academy of Engineering? There are tens of millions of engineers in the world. In 2009, 65 were elected, bringing the total to 2400.

Do you know what it means to be elected to the National Academy of Science? There are several million scientists at work in the world. In 2009, 72 were elected, bringing the total to 2150.

The American Academy of Arts & Sciences inducted 212 new members in 2009, bringing its total to 4600.

I don't know how many people are members of all three. I'm sure it's not more than a handful.

You might want to check out his list of publications: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/docs/Bazant/publicat.pdf

That's 490 publications & 6 books in a 45 year career. That's over 10 publications per year. Every year of his career.

Bazant is not the Michael Jordan of Engineering. While everyone has their favorites, I'd vote for Harold Edgerton or Kelly Johnson. But he's DEFINITELY Hall of Fame.

Now, tell me about Heiwa "correcting him"...

tom

[Typicallucas]

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

The model is in the paper. If you understood engineering it would be clear to you. You failed to read it?

Do you have any clues beside your failed delusional talk about nothing?

Tell me what is wrong with the model; it is in the paper I gave you. Speak up or you have failed@!

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read.

[KreeL]

Bazant proves nothing. His one-dimensional model is a fraud. He doesn't explain where he gets his data. Even NIST contradicts him all over the place. He is a government shill.

[beachnut]

Bazant proves nothing. His one-dimensional model is a fraud. He doesn't explain where he gets his data. Even NIST contradicts him all over the place. He is a government shill.
Talk? You think you say so without presenting a case makes is so! NOT

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Please point it out; his model. Show us the equations you think he got wrong. Go ahead make my day.

And you better include this one too.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Then take this on too!
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Please be specific and use references to your work to prove what you say is true. Point out what is wrong by paragraph and equation.

You picked up some key words from 911Truth failures and you repeat them not having a clue what you are saying! No reference to work, no specific problems; you just talk and call him a shill because you never did read his paper and you would not understand it if you did.

Show where NIST contradicts his work; source it to NIST and Bazant.

[KreeL]

The case of the debunking of Bazant has been presented dozens of times. If you haven't read the peer reviews, then you should. All of his papers failed, all three of his theories (so far, he's probably coming up with another one later this year) have failed.

Get up to speed, and report back.

[six7s]

Show where NIST contradicts his work; source it to NIST and Bazant.Hi beachnut,

When KreeL has done all that, I'd like a hand with a problem - if you have the time...

I have a rock in my garden from which I'd like to extract a litre of A+

:)

[KreeL]

Bazant states (with zero evidence) that the cores got red hot (800C) for a sustained period of time (he doesn't say how long). Please help him out with this simple statement. Does NIST say all the core columns were a sustained 800C? How does Bazant know this?

edited to add -- he must be psychic...OR he's trying to make his model seem 'plausible' (faithbased, of course).

[six7s]

Bazant states (with zero evidence) that the cores got red hot (800C) for a sustained period of time (he doesn't say how long).For those of us who aren't psychic, please specify where you read this

A quote would be good

As would a hyperlink to the relevant document

TYIA :)

[beachnut]

The case of the debunking of Bazant has been presented dozens of times. If you haven't read the peer reviews, then you should. All of his papers failed, all three of his theories (so far, he's probably coming up with another one later this year) have failed.

Get up to speed, and report back.
Sources?

You are just talking again and failed to reference you dozens of times.

The failure of debunking Bazant has happened once in a real journal the dolt was sent on his way proved wrong by Bazant.

Your dozen is a lie you just made up or plagiarized from 911Truth; a lie just the same.

There are zero peer review papers that debunk Bazant and published in a real journal. Please produce the dozen paper you have!

[beachnut]

Hi beachnut,

When KreeL has done all that, I'd like a hand with a problem - if you have the time...

I have a rock in my garden from which I'd like to extract a litre of A+

:)
I think he finally looked at the paper just now from Bazant; I will have my garden reading it soon. Where is the rock and when do you need it...

he read something from the paper; wow

[KreeL]

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… ( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:

Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )

Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

-- simple fact fuzzups between NIST and Bazant as researched by David Ray Griffin

[beachnut]

...-- simple fact fuzzups between NIST and Bazant as researched by David Ray Griffin
Great you have known liar as your source.
What kind of engineer is he? Oh, he engineers lies on 911. Great source but he did not write your cut and paste junk science; and alas it is not published in a real journal.

That is one of your dozen shot down; next.

But you failed to source your plagiarized post properly.

I don't think you understand Bazant's papers.

You quoted a paper that uses Bazant to support his own failed ideas. Irony; can you tell me who the real author of your cut and paste is and what elements of Bazant's work (actually giving credit it is a correct model by using it to defend his failed paper) he uses to support his work. Typical 911Truth they use the very stuff they deny to support their fake science efforts to fool you.

[KreeL]

Blinded by your faith once again.

Impossible to refute the facts, huh beachnut? So which one really lied? Bazant, or NIST?

[beachnut]

Blinded by your faith once again.

Impossible to refute the facts, huh beachnut? So which one really lied? Bazant, or NIST?It is impossible for you to bring the facts. You lied; I can point out the lies if you wish.

911Truth lied and fooled you into repeating blindly like a cult member failed papers.
You presented a failed paper which used Bazant as a source.

Ironic: you gave credit to DRG, he is a theologian; you need an engineer. Blind faith is your problem; you need science and engineering and you bring woo.

You said a dozen papers and you failed to source properly the paper you found in a journal of woo.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The paper you sourced used Bazant to support his ideas. You missed it as you cut and paste and credited the wrong person!

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
You failed to cite your source properly and you failed to see how the author who had to make up his own journal on line to publish his tripe used Bazant to support his failed ideas.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Which paper did your source use to justify his ideas on 911?
Who did you mess up and forget to credit?
Where are the other 11 papers of woo to help you?

[beachnut]

Bazant states (with zero evidence) that the cores got red hot (800C) for a sustained period of time (he doesn't say how long). Please help him out with this simple statement. Does NIST say all the core columns were a sustained 800C? How does Bazant know this?

edited to add -- he must be psychic...OR he's trying to make his model seem 'plausible' (faithbased, of course).
Faith based? DRG is a theologian, you are ironic as you post the woo of 911Truth as some sort of gospel from your cult you freely post without checking what is said or understanding what it says.

Bazant never said "red hot". You forgot to read the paper(s).

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped, many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed by annealing studies of steel debris (NIST 2005) [the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300°C, and about 85% at 600°C (NIST 2005); and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above 450°C e.g., Cottrell 1964, p. 299, especially in the columns overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of 800°C, turned out to be groundless, but Bažant and Zhou’s analysis did not depend on that].


Bazant explains his first paper does not depend on 800C.

I gave you the information, 3 papers really published in real journals of engineering not made up journals and vanity journals, to save you from posting tripe from idiots who are not engineers, but you went for the woo of 911Truth. You messed up and credited DRG the 911Truth hearsay master expert instead of the real author. I hope your research can credit the correct person who made up the moronic tripe.

[BigAl]

Bazant proves nothing. His one-dimensional model is a fraud. He doesn't explain where he gets his data. Even NIST contradicts him all over the place. He is a government shill.

If he's a "government shill" why does he disagree with the NIST in the slightest degree?

Nothing in the alleged discrepancies brought to us by the Twoof Movement can be fixed by the addition of man-made demolition material.

[tfk]

KreeL,

First off, where did you get your degree? What specialty? How many years experience? (For me: Cornell U, BS Mech Engr., 34+ years)

Bazant proves nothing. His one-dimensional model is a fraud. He doesn't explain where he gets his data. Even NIST contradicts him all over the place. He is a government shill.

"... one dimensional model is a fraud..."?? Please enlighten me. I've only got about 15 years experience in FEA modeling, and I'm a bit confused. I principally use my own seat of a product called Cosmos. But every program I've ever used has one dimensional models (aka, "elements") for long, slender 3 dimensional objects. You know, objects like the Twin Towers.

Are all of those programs "shill programs", too.

Please, KreeL. Enlighten me. Why do they provide these fraudulent "models"??

The case of the debunking of Bazant has been presented dozens of times. If you haven't read the peer reviews, then you should. All of his papers failed, all three of his theories (so far, he's probably coming up with another one later this year) have failed.

Get up to speed, and report back.

Again, I must have missed it. Please point me to these debunkings. Please explain to me (I'll struggle to follow along, I promise) EXACTLY how his papers "failed".

Just out of curiosity, did any of those debunkers teach at Northwestern? MIT? Stanford?

Did they belong to the National Academy of Engineering?


Bazant states (with zero evidence) that the cores got red hot (800C) for a sustained period of time (he doesn't say how long). Please help him out with this simple statement. Does NIST say all the core columns were a sustained 800C? How does Bazant know this?

edited to add -- he must be psychic...OR he's trying to make his model seem 'plausible' (faithbased, of course).


I was happy to see his temp predictions. They matched the ones that I made about 5 years ago. Why don't you tell me the criteria by which you came to YOUR conclusions about those temps. Your OWN work, please. Not NIST's. Then I'll tell you how I came to my conclusions.

BTW, do you understand the difference between "some columns got up to 800°C" and "all the columns were a sustained 800°C"??

BTW, I am sure that, being the talented engineer that you clearly are, you're aware that Dr. Bazant has shown, uh excuse me, has PROVEN that the fatal damage to the columns in the towers could have happened at temps as low as 250 - 300°C.

Of COURSE you are.


The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC… ( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )


You do realize that "exposed to temperatures of" is not the same as "achieve temperatures of". Office fires burn at 1200 - 1300°C. Beams are "exposed to" those temperatures. Without sprinklers or insulation, an enormous body of engineering data proves that, in large fires, the beams will quickly heat up to temps in the 800 - 1000°C range.


But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC.


Of course you realize that "about 20 minutes" is an estimate, and "a given location" is rather nebulous.

BTW, how do you explain the 18 - 20 HOUR fire in the Windsor Towers fire if fires "burn out in 20 minutes in a given location"? Did they keep importing new "locations"? Did they have 60 different locations? It sure looked to me like a whole bunch of those locations were all burning simultaneously for awile.

Perhaps you could also give us YOUR assessment as to how the WTC fire differed from typical office fires.


Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…”( Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2. )

Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).


Of course Bazant & Zhou didn't explain that. Do you NOT understand how that happened? With your engineering expertise?

I am shocked, KreeL. Shocked.

Allow me to provide you with a hint: NASA never explained how all those millions of pieces of the Shuttle Challenger knew to "disassemble at the same moment" either.

Think about it...


They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials.


They didn't.

You don't get it, KreeL. The temperature did not cause the failure. A loss of geometry in the supports and the loads caused the failures.

Physical damage caused the loads to shift, to become asymmetric, increasing dramatically in some areas. But not to immediate failure. The fires warmed the steel which allowed them to creep. Creep allowed the loads to shift from purely compressive or shear to bending.

Damage -> Asymmetric Loading -> small bending loads -> Fires -> Creep -> more tilting of the top & sagging of the floors -> higher bending loads -> higher stress -> higher creep -> higher tilting & sagging -> highest bending loads -> highest stress -> unsustainable tilting & sagging -> BUCKLING & FRACTURE...!

Lots of parts failed before the collapse began. In each case, some other component still had the ability to take up the lost load. But that margin was shrinking & shrinking. Finally, there was no more margin. Then one more piece failed, and everything else failed immediately after it. Because there was nothing that could take up the lost strength of the one failed piece.

NOW do you see how they all failed "simultaneously"?


NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.


Wrong. Review the Cardington Fire studies & you'll see that the steel temps can rise VERY rapidly. 20 minutes is more than enough. Especially for long thin beams. Let me ask you a question: If you have a column on the 93rd floor that is being heated by fire, but the 92nd & 94th floor parts of the same column are ALSO being heated by fire, where do you think the heat input on the 93rd floor are supposed to flow TO??


And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity.


It strains credulity. And is wrong.

Two buildings had planes fly into them. Two buildings collapsed by this mechanism.

WTC7 collapsed due to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism.

But, gee, you've only been told this about 50 times, I suppose...


Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:
Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)


Again, you give me YOUR thermal analysis on the core & peripheral columns. Then I'll show you mine.


-- simple fact fuzzups between NIST and Bazant as researched by David Ray Griffin


As researched by the religious studies guy...


Blinded by your faith once again.
Impossible to refute the facts, huh beachnut? So which one really lied? Bazant, or NIST?


No faith.
Engineering.
I'm waiting to see yours.

Neither Bazant not NIST lied. YOUR lack of understanding does not constitute THEIR lies.

Let's see if you can match their honesty.

tom

[Typicallucas]

KreeL plagiarized a document written by Dr. Steven E. Jones. In post #1106. Word for word.

Tsk tsk tsk, KreeL. You have been a very naughty boy.

Link http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_24c.htm#11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800°C Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou
http://kellnerpm.com/typicallucas/plagiarism.jpg

[Typicallucas]

Funny thing is, the way I found it was I noticed he wrote the degree symbol as a lower case letter O.

All I did was search for a sentence that contained 800oC and I found it! In the webpage he ripped off uses a superscript lower case O instead of the ° symbol.

[CORed]

Many persons take for granted that steel structures of certain types, e.g. WTC Twin Towers, collapse from top down - one-way crush down - if you start a fire up top. The fire is supposed to weaken support steel structure up top and then the structure above displaces down and one-way crushes the complete steel structure below.
Bazant and Zhou explained this already 2 days after 911.
However, the one-way crush down process is not possible under any circumstances. I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

As near as I can understand Heiwa's "thinking", once the bottom floor of the upper part of the building and the top floor of the lower part of the building have been broken into pieces, they disappear from the universe.

Of course, in the real world, even though it's been broken into pieces, the debris does not disappear from the universe, but is part of the falling mass that continues to crush the structure all the way to the ground. Of course some of the debris falls over the side, and maybe some is pulverized to small enough particles that wind resistance slows it down significantly, but certainly a large amount of it continues falling onto the lower floors.

[FineWine]

The case of the debunking of Bazant has been presented dozens of times. If you haven't read the peer reviews, then you should. All of his papers failed, all three of his theories (so far, he's probably coming up with another one later this year) have failed.

Get up to speed, and report back.

Peer reviews? Really? Tell us more.

[FineWine]

KreeL,

First off, where did you get your degree? What specialty? How many years experience? (For me: Cornell U, BS Mech Engr., 34+ years)



"... one dimensional model is a fraud..."?? Please enlighten me. I've only got about 15 years experience in FEA modeling, and I'm a bit confused. I principally use my own seat of a product called Cosmos. But every program I've ever used has one dimensional models (aka, "elements") for long, slender 3 dimensional objects. You know, objects like the Twin Towers.

Are all of those programs "shill programs", too.

Please, KreeL. Enlighten me. Why do they provide these fraudulent "models"??



Again, I must have missed it. Please point me to these debunkings. Please explain to me (I'll struggle to follow along, I promise) EXACTLY how his papers "failed".

Just out of curiosity, did any of those debunkers teach at Northwestern? MIT? Stanford?

Did they belong to the National Academy of Engineering?



I was happy to see his temp predictions. They matched the ones that I made about 5 years ago. Why don't you tell me the criteria by which you came to YOUR conclusions about those temps. Your OWN work, please. Not NIST's. Then I'll tell you how I came to my conclusions.

BTW, do you understand the difference between "some columns got up to 800°C" and "all the columns were a sustained 800°C"??

BTW, I am sure that, being the talented engineer that you clearly are, you're aware that Dr. Bazant has shown, uh excuse me, has PROVEN that the fatal damage to the columns in the towers could have happened at temps as low as 250 - 300°C.

Of COURSE you are.



You do realize that "exposed to temperatures of" is not the same as "achieve temperatures of". Office fires burn at 1200 - 1300°C. Beams are "exposed to" those temperatures. Without sprinklers or insulation, an enormous body of engineering data proves that, in large fires, the beams will quickly heat up to temps in the 800 - 1000°C range.



Of course you realize that "about 20 minutes" is an estimate, and "a given location" is rather nebulous.

BTW, how do you explain the 18 - 20 HOUR fire in the Windsor Towers fire if fires "burn out in 20 minutes in a given location"? Did they keep importing new "locations"? Did they have 60 different locations? It sure looked to me like a whole bunch of those locations were all burning simultaneously for awile.

Perhaps you could also give us YOUR assessment as to how the WTC fire differed from typical office fires.



Of course Bazant & Zhou didn't explain that. Do you NOT understand how that happened? With your engineering expertise?

I am shocked, KreeL. Shocked.

Allow me to provide you with a hint: NASA never explained how all those millions of pieces of the Shuttle Challenger knew to "disassemble at the same moment" either.

Think about it...



They didn't.

You don't get it, KreeL. The temperature did not cause the failure. A loss of geometry in the supports and the loads caused the failures.

Physical damage caused the loads to shift, to become asymmetric, increasing dramatically in some areas. But not to immediate failure. The fires warmed the steel which allowed them to creep. Creep allowed the loads to shift from purely compressive or shear to bending.

Damage -> Asymmetric Loading -> small bending loads -> Fires -> Creep -> more tilting of the top & sagging of the floors -> higher bending loads -> higher stress -> higher creep -> higher tilting & sagging -> highest bending loads -> highest stress -> unsustainable tilting & sagging -> BUCKLING & FRACTURE...!

Lots of parts failed before the collapse began. In each case, some other component still had the ability to take up the lost load. But that margin was shrinking & shrinking. Finally, there was no more margin. Then one more piece failed, and everything else failed immediately after it. Because there was nothing that could take up the lost strength of the one failed piece.

NOW do you see how they all failed "simultaneously"?



Wrong. Review the Cardington Fire studies & you'll see that the steel temps can rise VERY rapidly. 20 minutes is more than enough. Especially for long thin beams. Let me ask you a question: If you have a column on the 93rd floor that is being heated by fire, but the 92nd & 94th floor parts of the same column are ALSO being heated by fire, where do you think the heat input on the 93rd floor are supposed to flow TO??



It strains credulity. And is wrong.

Two buildings had planes fly into them. Two buildings collapsed by this mechanism.

WTC7 collapsed due to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism.

But, gee, you've only been told this about 50 times, I suppose...



Again, you give me YOUR thermal analysis on the core & peripheral columns. Then I'll show you mine.



As researched by the religious studies guy...



No faith.
Engineering.
I'm waiting to see yours.

Neither Bazant not NIST lied. YOUR lack of understanding does not constitute THEIR lies.

Let's see if you can match their honesty.

tom


You've taken a thoroughly dishonest fraud to the woodshed and exposed him. Is he ashamed to parade his ignorance in front of people who recognize him for what he is? No, he'll keep right on doing it. No shame and no conscience, these "truthers."

[six7s]

I can point out the lies if you wish.I ain't gonna get a hand with that litre of A+ anytime soon, am I?

:(

[MIKILLINI]

Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Momentum, and lack of explosives (since you have faith none were present).

So far, you haven't described your problem with Bazant's paper; why is that?
This gives the obvious impression of dodging on your behalf.

[KreeL]

If he's a "government shill" why does he disagree with the NIST in the slightest degree?

Nothing in the alleged discrepancies brought to us by the Twoof Movement can be fixed by the addition of man-made demolition material.

Because he rushed his paper before NIST released their report?

This is why he has to continually update his theories.

So who lied? Bazant?....or NIST?

[Arus808]

Bazant proves nothing. His one-dimensional model is a fraud. He doesn't explain where he gets his data. Even NIST contradicts him all over the place. He is a government shill.


this coming from a person who has demonstrated through EVERY single post that you do not know what you are talking abuot.

Bazant - fact based supported reports about the collapse

Kreel - a no name, internet troll, who thinks he knows more than engineers.

[KreeL]

Why do you have so much trouble understanding what I'm asking?

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?

[six7s]

Why do you have so much trouble understanding what I'm asking?Because it seems that everything you write is preposterous

Why do you ask?

Are you genuinely surprised that your credibility is sub-atomic?

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?
If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significance

[KreeL]

You can't tell me which one lied? Bazant or NIST?

[Typicallucas]

Since when is changing a theory a bad thing in science?

I'm not saying Bazant did or didn't, on this issue or any other. I haven't read his body of work.

The whole aim of science, as far as I can tell, is to describe the world the best way you can. When you learn something new sometimes you must change the way you describe the world.

You can't tell me which one lied? Bazant or NIST?
Does this qualify as an excluded middle fallacy? Why not consider that both lied, neither lied, one was wrong, one was right, or both were right? Why ask this loaded question in the first place?

If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significanceI would be interested in reading your response to this, Kreel. But don't just plagiarize this time, ok? It is very bad scholarship, and will only make your reputation worse.

[KreeL]

This is true. However, the faithbased in this thread pointed to Bazant's model as some kind of evidence, yet it is repudiated by NIST. Did Bazant change his model? If so, then show us his new improved one!

[Typicallucas]

You can't tell me which one lied? Bazant or NIST?

YOU'RE the one asserting that one of them lied.

Show some evidence to back up your accusation.

[Typicallucas]

This is true. However, the faithbased in this thread pointed to Bazant's model as some kind of evidence, yet it is repudiated by NIST. Did Bazant change his model? If so, then show us his new improved one!

I'm going to repeat what six7s said: If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significance.

[six7s]

You can't tell me which one lied? Bazant or NIST?Correct, I can't... simply because I haven't read either of the reports*

I have, however, read a few of your posts and recognise that you are in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims

If you can't substantiate them, don't make them

Easy, huh?

Now... getting back to the topic:

If you can identify a significant discrepancy in their workings/findings, please describe the significance





______________________
* this might come as a surprise to you, but the majority of people on the planet have no idea what NIST is

[KreeL]

Guess I win. None of you even read the reports.

Wow! Faithbased all the way.

Next time when you want to post in a thread, I would recommend you at least know what you are talking about. Come to think of it, why are any of you guys posting at all if you don't know what you're posting about?:confused:

pwnd.

[BasqueArch]

First it was "THE PANCAKE" -- Then it was "FLOOR TRUSS FAILURE" -- Now it's "FOOT OF GOD".

Oh brother - in his first paper he claimed the jet fuel melted the steel. LOL

I read the first Bazant paper. Nowhere does it say the jet fuel melted the steel.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

"The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the
steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core."

You are a liar and therefore a loser.

[KreeL]

So who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?

[Typicallucas]

Guess I win. None of you even read the reports.

Wow! Faithbased all the way.

Next time when you want to post in a thread, I would recommend you at least know what you are talking about. Come to think of it, why are any of you guys posting at all if you don't know what you're posting about?:confused:

pwnd.

What did you win? You made an accusation that either Bazant or the NIST lied, we asked you what makes you think that, and you say "Guess I win."

You have won nothing. You have said nothing. You spout claims and you are completely unable to substantiate them. The one time you tried to back up your claim, you plagiarized someone else's work.

If you read Bazant's papers, the NIST report, understood them, and recognized major discrepancies tell us what they are.

We have practically begged you, and I am running out of patience.

[Typicallucas]

So who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?

That's the fifth time you've asked that question while ignoring our requests for evidence to believe one of them is lying.

I we were talking in person this is about the time I'd try to sock you in the nose.

[Typicallucas]

Who plagiarized? KreeL? ... or KreeL?

[Dave Rogers]

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity predicts that the dynamics of objects at velocities approaching the speed of light differ significantly from the predictions of Newtonian mechanics. They can't both be right.

So who lied? Newton?...or Einstein?

Dave

[KreeL]

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?

[six7s]

Guess I win.Yeah, you win!

You want a medal?

Or a chest to hang it on?

None of you even read the reports.I haven't read much about homoeopathy, either

However, I've read enough to:

learn that its an important issue for many people

and
to form an opinion - which is subject to change, should convincing evidence surface

Likewise, I am reading about 9/11 CT...

So far, I have yet to read anything that isn't obviously written by deluded fools

However, I need to read more before I can conclude its all complete and utter bollocks; something you are NOT dissuading me from

Serious question: are you old enough to drive?

[stateofgrace]

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?

Go on then give us a clue, who lied?

[Typicallucas]

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?

If you are saying I don't know the meaning of plagiarism, I do. And you did it. You copied something someone else wrote word-for-word and made it appear as if it was your own.

I'm through with dealing with you. You refuse to participate in a discussion. You refuse to back up your accusations. You repeat yourself incessantly. You are dead to me and I will be ignoring you henceforth.

Have a nice night and go jump off a bridge.

[FineWine]

You don't know the meaning of the word.

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?


Neither lied. NIST's explanation is more detailed, makes use of data that wasn't available to the first group of researchers, reflects the thinking of a greater number of minds working in cooperation, and consequently supersedes--but does not invalidate--Bazant's.

A weatherman forecasts on Monday that the hurricane heading toward Florida will hit Miami. The storm changes course, and a weatherman on Wednesday predicts it will hit Tampa on the Gulf Coast. On Thursday, the storm changes course again and misses Florida entirely. Which one of them "lied"? Did they both "lie"?

Concepts that are very simple for bright children are extremely difficult for "truthers."

[T.A.M.]

Isn't it funny how the truthers have this insane idea that the real scientists of the world, are sitting at home, waiting for the truth movement to "debunk" their papers, so they can produce "sound rebuttals".

Listen, Kreel, and other truthers,

Bazant, NIST, etc...they really don't give a ****! They don't give a **** about you, or your insane theories. They do not give a **** about you waiting for them to respond, or where their new and improved papers are...they just don't care...you are smaller than ants under their feet...deal with it.

Bazant, given his incredibly long CV, has got, I am sure, many better things to do. As for NIST, I do not think they give a rats ass what the "truth movement" thinks.

TAM:)

[CORed]

Exactly. Heiwa gets something right in his model where the columns "offset".




Gravity

Gravity doesn't exist. The NWO shills at NIST made it up, just like they made up thermal expansion.

[bill smith]

Isn't it funny how the truthers have this insane idea that the real scientists of the world, are sitting at home, waiting for the truth movement to "debunk" their papers, so they can produce "sound rebuttals".

Listen, Kreel, and other truthers,

Bazant, NIST, etc...they really don't give a ****! They don't give a **** about you, or your insane theories. They do not give a **** about you waiting for them to respond, or where their new and improved papers are...they just don't care...you are smaller than ants under their feet...deal with it.

Bazant, given his incredibly long CV, has got, I am sure, many better things to do. As for NIST, I do not think they give a rats ass what the "truth movement" thinks.

TAM:)

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vYWxsZXMtc2NoYWxsdW5kcmF1Y2guYmxvZ3Nwb 3QuY29tLzIwMDkvMDUvOTExLXRpbWUtZm9yLXNlY29uZC1sb29 rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA%3D%3D&b=13

[FineWine]

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vYWxsZXMtc2NoYWxsdW5kcmF1Y2guYmxvZ3Nwb 3QuY29tLzIwMDkvMDUvOTExLXRpbWUtZm9yLXNlY29uZC1sb29 rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA%3D%3D&b=13



If Griffin says it, you know it's a lie.

[bill smith]

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vYWxsZXMtc2NoYWxsdW5kcmF1Y2guYmxvZ3Nwb 3QuY29tLzIwMDkvMDUvOTExLXRpbWUtZm9yLXNlY29uZC1sb29 rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA%3D%3D&b=13

PS. If that link doesn't work you can scroll down here for the video link.
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html

[T.A.M.]

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vYWxsZXMtc2NoYWxsdW5kcmF1Y2guYmxvZ3Nwb 3QuY29tLzIwMDkvMDUvOTExLXRpbWUtZm9yLXNlY29uZC1sb29 rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA%3D%3D&b=13

Finewine beat me to my original response, so he said it best.

DRG is the high priest of snake oil sales. He takes a collection of cherry picked, out of context quotes, and turns them not only into false allegations, but into a series of ****** books that the truthers eat up like ambrosia.

I trust, nor really pay attention to, anything DRG says. If you want my attention on a matter, you will have to do better than he.

TAM:)

[FineWine]

PS. If that link doesn't work you can scroll down here for the video link.
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html


I can see you think deeply about the stuff you post. Hmmm, could Griffin's statement be true? Well, NIST consulted with a thousand engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, and demolition professionals. Possibly three of them support NIST's conclusions. The teams at Berkeley and Purdue that simulated the collapses and found that their simulations behaved exactly as the towers did might be willing to say a kind word for official account. The group at FEMA, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the metallurgists at MIT and Lehigh...

Ol' Doc Grifter is funnin' with you.

[T.A.M.]

It wouldn't surprise me if DRG next says that Leprachauns and Unicorns exist, and only a handful of scientists disagree. He lies about EVERYTHING ELSE, so why not that.

If you really want to piss him off, tell him there is NO SANTA CLAUS.

TAM:D

[bill smith]

Finewine beat me to my original response, so he said it best.

DRG is the high priest of snake oil sales. He takes a collection of cherry picked, out of context quotes, and turns them not only into false allegations, but into a series of ****** books that the truthers eat up like ambrosia.

I trust, nor really pay attention to, anything DRG says. If you want my attention on a matter, you will have to do better than he.

TAM:)

I thought you'd want to be abreast of developements. But if you don't mind surprises that's okay too.

[FineWine]

I thought you'd want to be abreast of developements. But if you don't mind surprises that's okay too.


There are no developments. Griffin made a statement that is insanely false. It's as though I said there are four or five Democrats in New York City. How much scrutiny does that off-the-wall whopper merit?

[bill smith]

I can see you think deeply about the stuff you post. Hmmm, could Griffin's statement be true? Well, NIST consulted with a thousand engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, and demolition professionals. Possibly three of them support NIST's conclusions. The teams at Berkeley and Purdue that simulated the collapses and found that their simulations behaved exactly as the towers did might be willing to say a kind word for official account. The group at FEMA, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the metallurgists at MIT and Lehigh...

Ol' Doc Grifter is funnin' with you.

All of those are spoken for by the institutes they work for or are contracted to. They go along with it like many others. But we have no individual statement from any of them. On the flip side we have more than 500 individually signed up architects and engineers saying that 9/11 was an inside job.

[T.A.M.]

I thought you'd want to be abreast of developements. But if you don't mind surprises that's okay too.

lol, nothing that comes from DRG surprises me. He should be commended for his imagination, but reprimanded for not listing his books under "fiction".

TAM:D

Listen bill, when it comes to DRG, I have one word for you..."Airfones". Now if you take the time to look up that, and how it relates to DRG and his masterful research skills, you will see what I mean.

DRG is like a 4 year old sent to prospect for gold. The kid will diligently sift through the sediment in the river, and anything remotely shiny will make him go screaming "Gold!!!!!!". The poor sod of course, not realizing that all that glitters in NOT GOLD.

TAM:)

[FineWine]

All of those are spoken for by the institutes they work for or are contracted to. They go along with it like many others. But we have no individual statement from any of them. On the flip side we have more than 500 individually signed up architects and engineers saying that 9/11 was an inside job.



There is no flip side. Gage's group includes many frauds and almost no engineers. One exception is the guy who works on oil rigs and thinks the towers were nuked. Another is Heiwa. You expect "individual" statements from the thousands of scientists who consulted on the NIST and FEMA reports or those who worked as independent academic researchers? C'mon, give us a break. You aren't even fooling yourself.

[bill smith]

There is no flip side. Gage's group includes many frauds and almost no engineers. One exception is the guy who works on oil rigs and thinks the towers were nuked. Another is Heiwa. You expect "individual" statements from the thousands of scientists who consulted on the NIST and FEMA reports or those who worked as independent academic researchers? C'mon, give us a break. You aren't even fooling yourself.

Most people seem to be impressed by the 30-some structural engineers that Richard Gage has currently on his book of signatories demanding a new open and independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena. You can put your head in the sand if you like but it won't pay off in the end.

[FineWine]

Most people seem to be impressed by the 30-some structural engineers that Richard Gage has currently on his book of signatories demanding a new open and independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena. You can put your head in the sand if you like but it won't pay off in the end.


Most people have never heard of those crackpots. Gage's frauds hide under their beds and duck debates. When they venture outside their cocoons, they get smashed. Who should conduct the "new" and "independent" inquiry? If you use real scientists, you'll get the same results as the original investigation. If you use politicized frauds, you'll get the result people like you desperately need, but real scientists will still dismiss you.

[bill smith]

Most people have never heard of those crackpots. Gage's frauds hide under their beds and duck debates. When they venture outside their cocoons, they get smashed. Who should conduct the "new" and "independent" inquiry? If you use real scientists, you'll get the same results as the original investigation. If you use politicized frauds, you'll get the result people like you desperately need, but real scientists will still dismiss you.

I don't think so. In fact i think it is all over bar the shouting. It has been a long hard road for us heroic Truthers even if I say so myself.

[FineWine]

I don't think so. In fact i think it is all over bar the shouting. It has been a long hard road for us heroic Truthers even if I say so myself.



That road is a whole lot longer than you dare to accept. Your crazy movement hasn't taken its first real step yet, and it never will. Liars and frauds can't be heroes.

[bill smith]

That road is a whole lot longer than you dare to accept. Your crazy movement hasn't taken its first real step yet, and it never will. Liars and frauds can't be heroes.

We shall see.

[FineWine]

We shall see.



We've already seen everything there is to see. Nothing is happening. Bush is gone and your tiny movement is dead.

[bill smith]

We've already seen everything there is to see. Nothing is happening. Bush is gone and your tiny movement is dead.

Bush will never be gone for us .

[FineWine]

Bush will never be gone for us .


That's your problem. The real world moves on. You are trapped in your fairy tales. Nothing turned out the way your gurus predicted it would. But you don't care because you're not reality-based. Remember when Bush was going to declare martial law and suspend the elections? Didn't happen, did it? You post a stream of utter nonsense, but you finally managed to get something right. Bush will never be gone for you and it will always be 2005. The passage of time has invalidated all of your claims and stamped you "truthers" as irrelevant.

[aggle-rithm]

I don't think so. In fact i think it is all over bar the shouting. It has been a long hard road for us heroic Truthers even if I say so myself.

In order for there to be a long, hard road, you have to actually leave your apartment.

[GeeMack]

[RE: bill smith] You aren't even fooling yourself.


You may be wrong in your assessment. After all, doesn't it stand to reason that if bill isn't fooling himself, he's a troll.

[FineWine]

You may be wrong in your assessment. After all, doesn't it stand to reason that if bill isn't fooling himself, he's a troll.



Who ever said that he wasn't a troll?

[bill smith]

That's your problem. The real world moves on. You are trapped in your fairy tales. Nothing turned out the way your gurus predicted it would. But you don't care because you're not reality-based. Remember when Bush was going to declare martial law and suspend the elections? Didn't happen, did it? You post a stream of utter nonsense, but you finally managed to get something right. Bush will never be gone for you and it will always be 2005. The passage of time has invalidated all of your claims and stamped you "truthers" as irrelevant.

We will move on after this is sorted out and not before.

[aggle-rithm]

We will move on after this is sorted out and not before.

In other words, never.

[GeeMack]

Who ever said that he wasn't a troll?


Now that you ask, I don't recall anyone suggesting that he's not a troll. And many have suggested he is. Okay, you're probably correct in saying he isn't even fooling himself. :)

[FineWine]

We will move on after this is sorted out and not before.



As I said, you can NEVER move on. You are trapped in 2005. Your movement is hopelessly discredited. You are wrong--absurdly wrong--about everything. Not ONE of your myths can survive the slightest scrutiny. There isn't going to be any new investigation and none of the frauds you follow slavishly can defend his nonsense in debates with real scientists and engineers. You have condemned yourself to repeat the same claptrap eternally. Incapable of learning, impervious to criticism, you're insects stuck in amber.

[bill smith]

As I said, you can NEVER move on. You are trapped in 2005. Your movement is hopelessly discredited. You are wrong--absurdly wrong--about everything. Not ONE of your myths can survive the slightest scrutiny. There isn't going to be any new investigation and none of the frauds you follow slavishly can defend his nonsense in debates with real scientists and engineers. You have condemned yourself to repeat the same claptrap eternally. Incapable of learning, impervious to criticism, you're insects stuck in amber.

With all due respect- bullcrap from start to finish.

[NobbyNobbs]

I don't think so. In fact i think it is all over bar the shouting. It has been a long hard road for us heroic Truthers even if I say so myself.

And this, I think, is the crux of the matter. For whatever reason, truthers have the need to feel special, important, heroic. Their imapct in their normal life isn't enough; they need to impact the world. People like Heiwa need to say "Look at me! I'm making a difference!". People like Kreel or Bill Smith follow along blindly and say "I'm part of something important!"

Guys, you can make an impact on the world and still maintain rationality. Join the Peace Corps or Habitat for Humanity. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Join a charity drive.

Sure, now and then the "establishment" needs to be reminded that it's screwing up...but only when it really is. To stomp and whine and yell at any other time comes across as childish antics, with increasingly unlikely chances that anyone will take you seriously.

All in all, I don't think this is about 9/11 at all. I think it's about the need for these people to feel important. 9/11 just happens to be a big and convenient event, but if it didn't happen, they'd have found something else to inflate their egos on.

[six7s]

In order for there to be a long, hard road, you have to actually leave your apartment.Which involves convincing your mother to unlock your bedroom door...

Good luck with that, bill

[FineWine]

With all due respect- bullcrap from start to finish.


Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.

[bill smith]

Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.

This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.

[T.A.M.]

Most people seem to be impressed by the 30-some structural engineers that Richard Gage has currently on his book of signatories demanding a new open and independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena. You can put your head in the sand if you like but it won't pay off in the end.

you can find stupid, dumbass morons in any group, any profession, including mine. I applaud Gage for digging 30 of them up.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

We shall see.

that is the truest thing you have said in a while bill.

I think you will be disappointed by it though.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

you can find stupid, dumbass morons in any group, any profession, including mine. I applaud Gage for digging 30 of them up.

TAM:)

Why don't you guys dig up 30 structural engineeers from all the ones you claim. Let them go on live TV against Richard Gage's team of 30 structural engineers led by Heiwa. You can even throw Ray Mackey in for a little added colour.

[six7s]

Thoughtful answer--exactly what we've learned to expect. In the meantime, you remain trapped in 2005. No escape is possible. Events have exposed all of your delusions. Absolutely nothing turned out the way you predicted. You can't learn; you can't adapt; you can't submit your cherished myths to the slightest bit of critical examination. You've been selected for extinction by inexorable evolutionary forces.This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.If it really is 'bullcrap from start to finish', you will be able to describe at least one thing that has "turned out the way you predicted"

Please, EITHER do so OR accept that your reputation as a self-deluding and willfully-ignorant liar will become further entrenched in the minds of those reading this thread

[T.A.M.]

Why don't you guys dig up 30 structural engineeers from all the ones you claim. Let them go on live TV against Richard Gage's team of 30 structural engineers led by Heiwa. You can even throw Ray Mackey in for a little added colour.

lol. They have better things to do with their time, I AM SURE. But why don't I just pick up my magical red phone and get on the line with the overlord of structural engineering and have him assign 30 or so engineers to this task for you...

TAM:D

[bill smith]

And this, I think, is the crux of the matter. For whatever reason, truthers have the need to feel special, important, heroic. Their imapct in their normal life isn't enough; they need to impact the world. People like Heiwa need to say "Look at me! I'm making a difference!". People like Kreel or Bill Smith follow along blindly and say "I'm part of something important!"

Guys, you can make an impact on the world and still maintain rationality. Join the Peace Corps or Habitat for Humanity. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Join a charity drive.

Sure, now and then the "establishment" needs to be reminded that it's screwing up...but only when it really is. To stomp and whine and yell at any other time comes across as childish antics, with increasingly unlikely chances that anyone will take you seriously.

All in all, I don't think this is about 9/11 at all. I think it's about the need for these people to feel important. 9/11 just happens to be a big and convenient event, but if it didn't happen, they'd have found something else to inflate their egos on.

This is about the size of it in the immortal words of Mike Rivero.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

[FineWine]

This post is a virtual twin to the one in which I used the 'Bullcrap' remark. Therefore I must repeat myself. Bullcrap from start to finish.


Yes, we can all see that you're at a loss for words. I'll help you get started. The horribly misnamed "truth" movement was correct in predicting...?
How about that pipeline in Afghanistan? No, that didn't happen. Ah, we magically stole oil from Iraq. No, the Russkies and the Chinese inked all the sweetheart deals. American armies are marching through the Middle East like Mongol hordes. No, we have a liberal president who's trying to pull out of the region. Scientists and engineers all over the world have risen in protest against NIST's fraudulent science. Afraid not. Nobody in countries unfriendly to America has pointed out any errors in the NIST reports.

Well, I tried. Your confession that you're never done with Bush shows the depth of your problem. He's gone. He's just not there anymore. You can stamp your feet, scream, hold your breath--he isn't coming back. It looks like the purpose of your conspiracy was to wipe out the Republicans and restore the Democrats to power. Not exactly what you people were yelling about, is it?

[FineWine]

Why don't you guys dig up 30 structural engineeers from all the ones you claim. Let them go on live TV against Richard Gage's team of 30 structural engineers led by Heiwa. You can even throw Ray Mackey in for a little added colour.


Real scientists and engineers can't "go live" against Gage, Heiwa, or the other frauds because YOUR SIDE WON'T SHOW UP.

[six7s]

This is about the size of it in the immortal words of Mike Rivero.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."I'll see your Mike Rivero and raise you two Bertrand Russells

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

----------

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it.

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

[T.A.M.]

my favorite, was when they were predicting Bush and Cheney would reverse, or not allow, the presidential elections, and instead declare martial law. That was a good one...lots of laughs.

TAM:)

[Heiwa]

Real scientists and engineers can't "go live" against Gage, Heiwa, or the other frauds because YOUR SIDE WON'T SHOW UP.

I am here to support Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. I actually started the thread. And nobody seems to be able to debunk me. I wonder why?

[bill smith]

Yes, we can all see that you're at a loss for words. I'll help you get started. The horribly misnamed "truth" movement was correct in predicting...?
How about that pipeline in Afghanistan? No, that didn't happen. Ah, we magically stole oil from Iraq. No, the Russkies and the Chinese inked all the sweetheart deals. American armies are marching through the Middle East like Mongol hordes. No, we have a liberal president who's trying to pull out of the region. Scientists and engineers all over the world have risen in protest against NIST's fraudulent science. Afraid not. Nobody in countries unfriendly to America has pointed out any errors in the NIST reports.

Well, I tried. Your confession that you're never done with Bush shows the depth of your problem. He's gone. He's just not there anymore. You can stamp your feet, scream, hold your breath--he isn't coming back. It looks like the purpose of your conspiracy was to wipe out the Republicans and restore the Democrats to power. Not exactly what you people were yelling about, is it?

Perhaps you are done with generalising and we can get bck to specifics ?

[six7s]

I am here to support Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. I actually started the thread. And nobody seems to be able to debunk me. I wonder why?You have had your whacky notions dissected and handed back to you on a plate...

Maybe you can't recognise them because they are so completely torn to shreds

[six7s]

Perhaps you are done with generalising and we can get bck to specifics ?The ball is in your court:

If it really is 'bullcrap from start to finish', you will be able to describe at least one thing that has "turned out the way you predicted"

Please, EITHER do so OR accept that your reputation as a self-deluding and willfully-ignorant liar will become further entrenched in the minds of those reading this thread

We're waiting

[FineWine]

I am here to support Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. I actually started the thread. And nobody seems to be able to debunk me. I wonder why?

Former heavyweight champion Max Baer staggered back to his corner at the end of a round in his fight with Joe Louis. Baer's manager said to his battered and bleeding fighter, "You're doing great. He hasn't laid a glove on you." Maxie replied, "Keep your eye on that referee. Someone out there is beating the living **** out of me."

[FineWine]

Perhaps you are done with generalising and we can get bck to specifics ?



I suggest looking up the word "specific."

[T.A.M.]

I am here to support Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. I actually started the thread. And nobody seems to be able to debunk me. I wonder why?

nobody really gives a **** what you have to say on the matter, I am guessing.

but that is just a guess.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

I am here to support Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. I actually started the thread. And nobody seems to be able to debunk me. I wonder why?

In the second collapse in this video a big piece of the core appears to remain standing. Would that piece have destroyed the hypthetical falling block C ? If so should collapse arrest have occurred soon after ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

[FineWine]

In the second collapse in this video a big piece of the core appears to remain standing. Would that piece have destroyed the hypthetical falling block C ? If so should collapse arrest have occurred soon after ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY


We agree then that nothing turned out the way you people predicted. Heiwa has been debunked from here to next week. Stick a fork in him.

[bill smith]

We agree then that nothing turned out the way you people predicted. Heiwa has been debunked from here to next week. Stick a fork in him.

You sound like you mean in his eye. lol. Well, not to get too involved in this or anything- we predicted thermite almost from the get-go and that has proved to be true.

[Grizzly Bear]

we predicted thermite almost from the get-go and that has proved to be true.
What Hollywood films have you viewed to come to this conclusion? Because I see no indication of incendiary-induced collapse progression.

[FineWine]

You sound like you mean in his eye. lol. Well, not to get too involved in this or anything- we predicted thermite almost from the get-go and that has proved to be true.


Galileo is to be pitied, but unless you want to be regarded in a similar fashion, you'd do well to keep in mind that your guru's "thermite" turned out to be red paint. Your prediction, like ALL "truther" predictions, was dead wrong.

[bill smith]

Galileo is to be pitied, but unless you want to be regarded in a similar fashion, you'd do well to keep in mind that your guru's "thermite" turned out to be red paint. Your prediction, like ALL "truther" predictions, was dead wrong.

I suppose you can tell the peer-review board that or better still produce your own peer reviewed paper to counter it. Failing that- It stands unchallenged.

[FineWine]

I suppose you can tell the peer-review board that or better still produce your own peer reviewed paper to counter it. Failing that- It stands unchallenged.


The worthless paper was challenged and utterly destroyed by Sunstealer, who is a real materials scientist. The pay-for-play journal is bogus. Several editors quit over the publication of this travesty.

[beachnut]

Why don't you guys dig up 30 structural engineeers from all the ones you claim. Let them go on live TV against Richard Gage's team of 30 structural engineers led by Heiwa. You can even throw Ray Mackey in for a little added colour.

Heiwa was debunk since the earth was formed.
Heiwa was debunk specifically on 911 three times.
Hewa is debunked by models you can't figure out due to lack of knowledge, ignorace in structures, math, phyiscs, sceicne, rational thought, logic and other topics.

Please provide rational critique of these papers; if you could understand these papers you would understand Heiwa's ideas are failed nut case ideas.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf)
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf)

Which paper have you read? Are you an engineer and a pilot like me; what is your profession? Why do you lack the skill to see fraud on 911?
These papers refute Heiwa. You support failed work, failed opinions, and failed ideas on 911.

[bill smith]

The worthless paper was challenged and utterly destroyed by Sunstealer, who is a real materials scientist. The pay-for-play journal is bogus. Several editors quit over the publication of this travesty.

When will Sunstealer go for peer review ? I don't think we should hold our breath, do you ? The Nobel people who have peer reviewed papers there seem happy enough don't they ? No, Bentham is fully accredited and authentic. The paper stands.

[FineWine]

When will Sunstealer go for peer review ? I don't think we should hold our breath, do you ? Te Nobel people who have peer revieed papers there seem happy enough don't they ? No, Bentham is fully accredited and authentic. The paper stands.


Who is your audience? Mr. Mackey showed why Bentham is rubbish. You think that we've all forgotten a thread from last month? It was one of the first things I read here. Jones and the other frauds will NEVER--repeat: NEVER--submit their samples to an independent lab. You know it; everybody here knows it. Sunstealer did magnificent work demolishing the fraudulent science in that paper. I suspect he intends to do more than publish his efforts on an obscure internet forum.

[bill smith]

Who is your audience? Mr. Mackey showed why Bentham is rubbish. You think that we've all forgotten a thread from last month? It was one of the first things I read here. Jones and the other frauds will NEVER--repeat: NEVER--submit their samples to an independent lab. You know it; everybody here knows it. Sunstealer did magnificent work demolishing the fraudulent science in that paper. I suspect he intends to do more than publish his efforts on an obscure internet forum.

Go for it. Let the science win the day. But right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post. All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now. But like I say- knock yourself out.

[Jackanory]

Go for it. Let the science win the day, Right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post. All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now. But like I say- knock yourself out.

I hope Jones and Co go the full hog. Get it published in National Geo, Washington Post, NY Times, worldwide publicity. News at Ten, BBC world, CNN etc etc etc. The sooner the better. Then the world (and not 57 posters currently veiwing) would see what a bunch of fruitcakes they are.

Bring it on Bill.

[six7s]

Failing that- It stands unchallenged.Unlike you...

I have repeatedly challenged you to 'put up or shut up'

I wonder... Are you overlooking my challenge by sheer dint of self-delusion, or are you hiding from me behind the forum ignore feature?

[T.A.M.]

I hope Jones and Co go the full hog. Get it published in National Geo, Washington Post, NY Times, worldwide publicity. News at Ten, BBC world, CNN etc etc etc. The sooner the better. Then the world (and not 57 posters currently veiwing) would see what a bunch of fruitcakes they are.

Bring it on Bill.

exactly. While it is highly improbable that REAL journals with REAL peer review, and REAL standards, will ever do much with the paper (besides use it to wrap a sandwich in), it would be cool to see it published in something to get enough publicity to have REAL scientists tear it apart.

The funny thing is, you would think that like Jones and the crowd, the truthers here would fear the nonsense being exposed to the light, but I think some of the truthers on this board are so far down the rabbit hole, they actually believe in Jones' snake oil...honest to goodness.

TAM:)

[Typicallucas]

This thread isn't going anywhere because:

1. The "Truthers" are making claims and not providing evidence satisfactory to a reasonably skeptical person.

2. The "Truthers" have an expectation that their claims should be proven wrong, even though the onus for evidence is upon the "Truthers."

Imagine if I claimed that "condom manufacturers infect their products headed for Africa with HIV." Wouldn't you demand some kind of evidence to give you good reason to suspect it be true? Without reason to suspect a conspiracy would you go on a wild goose chase getting grant money for research, testing samples from factories, interviewing lab technicians, reading thousands of pages of investigation reports?

Until the "Truthers" understand that their claims require evidence I don't think this conversation is going to progress.

But that is o.k. too. This can be the place where people with low standards of evidence are reminded that their extraordinary claims cannot be taken seriously.

Isn't "Truther" a terribly ironic name for these people??

[T.A.M.]

This thread isn't going anywhere because:

1. The "Truthers" are making claims and not providing evidence satisfactory to a reasonably skeptical person.

2. The "Truthers" have an expectation that their claims should be proven wrong, even though the onus for evidence is upon the "Truthers."

Imagine if I claimed that "condom manufacturers infect their products headed for Africa with HIV." Wouldn't you demand some kind of evidence to give you good reason to suspect it be true? Without reason to suspect a conspiracy would you go on a wild goose chase getting grant money for research, testing samples from factories, interviewing lab technicians, reading thousands of pages of investigation reports?

Until the "Truthers" understand that their claims require evidence I don't think this conversation is going to progress.

But that is o.k. too. This can be the place where people with low standards of evidence are reminded that their extraordinary claims cannot be taken seriously.

Isn't "Truther" a terribly ironic name for these people??

QFT!

[FineWine]

Go for it. Let the science win the day. But right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post. All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now. But like I say- knock yourself out.


You really, truly, honest-to-god, don't get it. Jones and his cohorts paid to publish in a vanity journal. The scientific community ignored them. If they wanted to draw attention to their work, they would eagerly submit their samples to an independent lab. (Please read the next sentence out loud.) THEY WILL NEVER SUBMIT THEIR SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THE RESULT WOULD BE.

There is no race. There are established frauds stringing along the most gullible, uncritical suckers alive.

[NobbyNobbs]

This is about the size of it in the immortal words of Mike Rivero.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Very well. What have you done? What action have you taken in the face of a corrupt government? What risk of harm have you endured? In what way do you qualify as a "heroic Truther"?

(Hint: posting on an internet forum does not meet the qualifications.)

[Typicallucas]

I built a simplified WTC tower model and watched it collapse.

I don't have the software to record video of the model running so instead I took screenshots and arranged them in a large jpeg image.

I wish you guys could see the model run, the sound is chilling.

View the image (http://kellnerpm.com/typicallucas/collapse.jpg)

Take note that this simulation is very limited, but it is an interesting example of what Heiwa terms a one-way crush down.

[six7s]

I built a simplified WTC tower model and watched it collapse.Cool!

What software(?) did you use to create the model?

[Typicallucas]

I used Armadillo Run (it's a game)

http://www.armadillorun.com/
The full version costs $20, but it's worth it.

[bill smith]

You really, truly, honest-to-god, don't get it. Jones and his cohorts paid to publish in a vanity journal. The scientific community ignored them. If they wanted to draw attention to their work, they would eagerly submit their samples to an independent lab. (Please read the next sentence out loud.) THEY WILL NEVER SUBMIT THEIR SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THE RESULT WOULD BE.

There is no race. There are established frauds stringing along the most gullible, uncritical suckers alive.

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?

[KreeL]

Dr. Haritt spent a year and a half carefully analyzing the debris and writing the paper.

Dr. Haritt knows thermite. People that simply handwave the proof away are too easily swayed by propaganda to examine the facts.

Comparing the thermitic material to paint chips was very important to Dr. Haritt. His reputation as one of Europe's leading scientists is at stake.

Maybe Greening et al would like to examine the debris themselves instead of assuming Dr. Haritt botched his analysis? They could try contacting NIST for some samples. Come to think of it - NIST has had samples since day one. I'll bet they want to puke because they've been pwnd - BIGTIME.

[Dave Rogers]

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ?

No. There are more scientists than that on this forum alone. Hell, there are probably more posting in this thread.

The Nobel people who have peer reviewed papers there seem happy enough don't they ?

Go back and check your source for this statement, and do some research into it. I think you'll find it doesn't mean anything like what you think it means.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Three or four scientists in the world?? Heck, there were that many that on the Purdue WTC collapse simulation team (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/research/technical_reports/2007/TR%2007-007.pdf) alone. And hell, nearly that many on the Worchester Polytechnic analysis (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html) by itself.

DRG is famous for not telling the truth about 9/11.

ETA - And if we want to really drive the point home: There were more Ph.D researchers who contributed to the Popular Mechanics story (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9) than that. I count 11, and I'm only counting those who actually show university affiliation; there are more Ph.D's listed there than that, but some of them are in industry or business, not academic research. If you count those, the number goes up. And I don't think you can get any more public than commenting on a story published in a mainstream magazine.

The point is, that "three or four scientists in the world" comment is dumb rhetoric. Individual studies that have been conducted on isolated issues - such as the Purdue collapse simulation - have at least that many.

[BigAl]

Never mind.

[BigAl]

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?


Wrong.

Yes, reproduction of experiments is part of the scientific process but it's separate from "peer review"

Prof Jones has blocked any possible experimental reproduction of his work.

Part of the scientific process is to present papers in meetings and address points made by others working in relevant fields. Jone doesn't do this. None of the kooks in the Half Truth Movement do this.

[Dave Rogers]

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not.

This statement betrays a total lack of understanding of the peer review process. Speaking as someone who has extensive experience of both sides of it (and only one of many on this forum), the idea that a second group of researchers has to physically repeat the results published in a paper before approving that paper for publication is utterly laughable. As usual, bill has not the slightest idea what he's talking about here.

Dave

[tfk]

you can find stupid, dumbass morons in any group, any profession, including mine. I applaud Gage for digging 30 of them up.

TAM:)
TAM,

I have to disagree.

Gage didn't "dig them up".

He simply made himself visible. They found him.

That takes MUCH less effort.

tom

[tfk]

I am here to support Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. I actually started the thread. And nobody seems to be able to debunk me. I wonder why?
.

Because you dwell in in a world of fantasy & self-delusions?

Because you are incapable of understanding a concisely formed engineeing or mathematical proof?

Because you refuse to have an honest, honorable conversation?

(those are the first ones that jump to my mind... There are undoubtably many, many more.)

Glad to help.

:D

tom

[tfk]

You sound like you mean in his eye. lol. Well, not to get too involved in this or anything- we predicted thermite almost from the get-go and that has proved to be true.
.
LMAO...

No you did NOT "predict thermite, and it turned out to be true".

Jones predicted "thermite ... uh, thermate ... uh, thermite ... uh, nanothermite ... uh, "red colored thermitic material" ... uh, "red colored thermitic material used as a FUSE".

:)

And it turned out to be ... paint.

:D

Hilarious.

tk

[tfk]

I suppose you can tell the peer-review board that or better still produce your own peer reviewed paper to counter it. Failing that- It stands unchallenged.
.
billy likes to say stuff like this.

He thinks that his pronouncement on the issue, uh, "matters". Somehow...

tom

[tfk]

Let the science win the day.


Rest assured. Science will.


But right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post.


The amusing part is that you know SO LITTLE about real science that you actually believe that this is true.

That is pretty DAMN funny, bill.

Pssst. There is that annoying little matter of "independent confirmation". "Replication of results".

Not to mention "peer review".
No, bill. Not THAT "peer review". REAL peer review.


All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now.

.
Allow me to repeat. "You know SO LITTLE about science ..."

lol.

tk

[tfk]

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?

.
LMAO...!!

[Somebody, please tell me where to find those laughing dogs. "LMAO" just is soooo inadequate for moments like this.]

FW, clearly YOU don't understand the "scientific method". Or the standards of the peer review & publication process.

Let's get an expert - like bill - to explain it to you.

LMAO.

You tell him, bill, about all the PROPER steps required for a "peer reviewed technical paper". I'm sure that you can recite chapter-and-verse from your own extensive experience in the process.

LMFAO...

Hang in there, FW. And anyone else who ever intends to publish a paper. Billy's about to explain it all to us.

tom

PS. Bill, I've got a question for you. I've had about 6 papers reviewed & published. Four of them detailed the results of cardiac procedures that used prototype heart catheter that I designed.

How the heck did those guys replicate my results, when I had personally built every single one of those catheters that existed in the world at that time?? Boy, those guys were clever...

[tfk]

Well guys,

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vYWxsZXMtc2NoYWxsdW5kcmF1Y2guYmxvZ3Nwb 3QuY29tLzIwMDkvMDUvOTExLXRpbWUtZm9yLXNlY29uZC1sb29 rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA%3D%3D&b=13

If Griffin says it, you know it's a lie.


Ol' Doc Grifter is funnin' with you.


He lies about EVERYTHING ELSE, so why not that.
...
TAM
___

You all owe Dr. Griffin an apology. You jumped to conclusions, and have unjustly chastised the Good Doctor.

Dr. Griffin did NOT lie.

Billy did.

[Yeah, I know. Shocking, ain't it...?]

Dr. Griffin did NOT say that "the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it."

What he said was:


"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled.

.
He said that "supporters (of the OCT) CAN ONLY NAME 3 engineers (not scientists -tk) who support the official story".

Let me ask you all: "How many heart surgeons can you NAME?"

1? 2? 5?

Do you think that means that there are only 5 heart surgeons in the world??

I would venture to say that most supporters of NIST's conclusions could not provide the names of more than 3 engineers involved. So, DRG did not literally lie in THAT sentence. He was just massively deceptive.

But, while DRG didn't lie, Billy did. About what DRG really said.

Lest you worry that the world is turning upside down, rest assured. DRG DID LIE. Just not in this sentence.

He goes on to say, in that interview:


We've really now established the truth. The truth is settled. Because all these facts that I've talked about in my books are now accepted by professionals and scientists. So a few years ago, we didn't have many people in the relevant professions. But now we have, besides physicists & chemists who have discovered evidence that the WTC was definitely demolished by the use of high explosives, nanothermite in particular...

The weight of scientific and professional opinion among people who have studied the evidence is now overwhelmingly on the side of the 9/11 truth movement.


Ahhhh, THAT's better.

So you can rest easy.

Twoofers wouldn't know the truth "if it sat in their lap & called 'em 'mommy'."

The world is as it was. And shall be.

tk

[tsig]

.
LMAO...!!

[Somebody, please tell me where to find those laughing dogs. "LMAO" just is soooo inadequate for moments like this.]

FW, clearly YOU don't understand the "scientific method". Or the standards of the peer review & publication process.

Let's get an expert - like bill - to explain it to you.

LMAO.

You tell him, bill, about all the PROPER steps required for a "peer reviewed technical paper". I'm sure that you can recite chapter-and-verse from your own extensive experience in the process.

LMFAO...

Hang in there, FW. And anyone else who ever intends to publish a paper. Billy's about to explain it all to us.

tom

PS. Bill, I've got a question for you. I've had about 6 papers reviewed & published. Four of them detailed the results of cardiac procedures that used prototype heart catheter that I designed.

How the heck did those guys replicate my results, when I had personally built every single one of those catheters that existed in the world at that time?? Boy, those guys were clever...

Did you have a mysterious power outage then? They obviously snuck into your lab and used the equipment. :)

[bill smith]

Well guys,








___

You all owe Dr. Griffin an apology. You jumped to conclusions, and have unjustly chastised the Good Doctor.

Dr. Griffin did NOT lie.

Billy did.

[Yeah, I know. Shocking, ain't it...?]

Dr. Griffin did NOT say that "the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it."

What he said was:


.
He said that "supporters (of the OCT) CAN ONLY NAME 3 engineers (not scientists -tk) who support the official story".

Let me ask you all: "How many heart surgeons can you NAME?"

1? 2? 5?

Do you think that means that there are only 5 heart surgeons in the world??

I would venture to say that most supporters of NIST's conclusions could not provide the names of more than 3 engineers involved. So, DRG did not literally lie in THAT sentence. He was just massively deceptive.

But, while DRG didn't lie, Billy did. About what DRG really said.

Lest you worry that the world is turning upside down, rest assured. DRG DID LIE. Just not in this sentence.

He goes on to say, in that interview:



Ahhhh, THAT's better.

So you can rest easy.

Twoofers wouldn't know the truth "if it sat in their lap & called 'em 'mommy'."

The world is as it was. And shall be.

tk

Having your own stalking groupie can have an upside. Nuch obliged for the Griffin Transcripts T.. I like this one in particular...

"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled...''

Damned powerful interview was that one. Be sure to pass it on.

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html lucerne 09.05.09

[bill smith]

T....Heiwa has answered your question on the''Heiwa Challenge'' page. I was wondering when you are going to reply ? This could be a highly interesting debate between you.

[aggle-rithm]

T....Heiwa has answered your question on the''Heiwa Challenge'' page. I was wondering when you are going to reply ? This could be a highly interesting debate between you.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're a troll. There's no way a person could really be that thick-headed and survive long enough to learn to operate a computer without first drowning in his Cheerios one morning.

[tfk]

Having your own stalking groupie can have an upside. Nuch obliged for the Griffin Transcripts T..

.

Let me see if I understand you.

You find someone "proving & then posting the fact that you are EITHER so completely incompetent that you cannot accurately transcribe one single sentence OR a bald-faced liar" to "have an upside"...??

Kinky...


I like this one in particular...

"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled...''

Damned powerful interview was that one. Be sure to pass it on.

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html lucerne 09.05.09

.
I am happy to pass it on. I'd give him a megaphone, if possible.

And you STILL don't understand.

When some idiot (like DRG or you) says that "2 + 2 = 356", it does NOT add weigh to the proposition that "2 + 2 REALLY DOES equal 356".

It simply reveals the idiot to be an idiot.

To even the most casual of observers.

tk

[tfk]

T....Heiwa has answered your question on the''Heiwa Challenge'' page.


I have asked Heiwa about 30 questions over the course of the last 6 weeks or so. Some of them with answers as simple as "yes" or "no".

He has yet to answer ONE of those questions.

He babbles nonsense. You may well recognize the recipe:
"Take random words.
String together.
Conclude with "See world famous Heiwa axiom."


I was wondering when you are going to reply ? This could be a highly interesting debate between you.

.
"... highly interesting ..."??

Not a chance.

I know what I'm talking about. It makes the discussion both one-sided and annoying.

[bill smith]

I have asked Heiwa about 30 questions over the course of the last 6 weeks or so. Some of them with answers as simple as "yes" or "no".

He has yet to answer ONE of those questions.

He babbles nonsense. You may well recognize the recipe:
"Take random words.
String together.
Conclude with "See world famous Heiwa axiom."


.
"... highly interesting ..."??

Not a chance.

I know what I'm talking about. It makes the discussion both one-sided and annoying.

Well...actually No.... I see Heiwa giving you an education in structural damage analysis (about which you know nothing btw).

[T.A.M.]

bill;

Peer review DOES NOT involve, in any way, shape, or form, the repeating of testing or analysis within a paper being reviewed.

Stick to what you know.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

.

Let me see if I understand you.

You find someone "proving & then posting the fact that you are EITHER so completely incompetent that you cannot accurately transcribe one single sentence OR a bald-faced liar" to "have an upside"...??

Kinky...


.
I am happy to pass it on. I'd give him a megaphone, if possible.

And you STILL don't understand.

When some idiot (like DRG or you) says that "2 + 2 = 356", it does NOT add weigh to the proposition that "2 + 2 REALLY DOES equal 356".

It simply reveals the idiot to be an idiot.

To even the most casual of observers.

tk

Hey T....Heiwa just answered your latest question....Let's all mosey on over there and watch T.get his lessons. Chin up T...

[FineWine]

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?


There is a high level of confidence that this paper is a total fraud. Editors of the pay-for-play vanity journal resigned over the publication of politically-driven rubbish being presented as science. Who are the "peer-reviewers"? Do they exist? How do you know?

[FineWine]

Having your own stalking groupie can have an upside. Nuch obliged for the Griffin Transcripts T.. I like this one in particular...

"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled...''

Damned powerful interview was that one. Be sure to pass it on.

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html lucerne 09.05.09

Let us know why Griffin refuses to debate his army of critics.

[FineWine]

Dr. Haritt spent a year and a half carefully analyzing the debris and writing the paper.

Dr. Haritt knows thermite. People that simply handwave the proof away are too easily swayed by propaganda to examine the facts.

Comparing the thermitic material to paint chips was very important to Dr. Haritt. His reputation as one of Europe's leading scientists is at stake.

Maybe Greening et al would like to examine the debris themselves instead of assuming Dr. Haritt botched his analysis? They could try contacting NIST for some samples. Come to think of it - NIST has had samples since day one. I'll bet they want to puke because they've been pwnd - BIGTIME.


So, when will Dr. Haritt be submitting his samples for verification?

Oh, NEVER, you say. That's interesting.

[T.A.M.]

So, when will Dr. Haritt be submitting his samples for verification?

Oh, NEVER, you say. That's interesting.

Exactly. You want to talk about hand waving. Very easy for Kreel and the cult to grandstand, when they know full well that Harrit, Jones and the other whacko frauds will NEVER submit their dust for TRUE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS.

NEVER!

TAM:)

[Heiwa]

Exactly. You want to talk about hand waving. Very easy for Kreel and the cult to grandstand, when they know full well that Harrit, Jones and the other whacko frauds will NEVER submit their dust for TRUE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS.

NEVER!

TAM:)

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: TAM , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

[T.A.M.]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: TAM , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

have you been drinking? Not only does the above make no sense, but I do not even speak German.

TAM:rolleyes:

[BigAl]

Dr. Haritt spent a year and a half carefully analyzing the debris and writing the paper.



Has Haritt made his resume/C.V and his professional affiliations known to the public?

What are they?

If he hasn't, he's a fraud.

[FineWine]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: TAM , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?



Your exposure as a complete fraud has apparently induced a breakdown. You are the religious fanatic, remember?

[Typicallucas]

My entry to the Heiwa challenge:
Here is my entry to the challenge:
WrUiPGwOReM

I believe this meets the challenge criteria and passed. How do you respond?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUiPGwOReM

Let's see if I get my million bucks.

[Typicallucas]

deleted

[NobbyNobbs]

T....Heiwa has answered your question on the''Heiwa Challenge'' page. I was wondering when you are going to reply ? This could be a highly interesting debate between you.

Speaking of replying to questions, would you mind responding to post 1209?

[aggle-rithm]

"... highly interesting ..."??

Not a chance.

I know what I'm talking about. It makes the discussion both one-sided and annoying.

Well...actually No.... I see Heiwa giving you an education in structural damage analysis (about which you know nothing btw).

Is the following an example of such an "education"?

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: TAM , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

[Grizzly Bear]

have you been drinking? Not only does the above make no sense, but I do not even speak German.

TAM:rolleyes:
I thought I had de ja vu until I realized he did this twice.... once here, and the other in response to TK... If that is the apparent standard for AE911truth expertise..... god help them...

[FineWine]

I thought I had de ja vu until I realized he did this twice.... once here, and the other in response to TK... If that is the apparent standard for AE911truth expertise..... god help them...


His public breakdown is giving me the creeps. Does anyone else feel that way?

[T.A.M.]

His public breakdown is giving me the creeps. Does anyone else feel that way?

yah that comment came out of nowhere, and was just...insane.

TAM:)