The Destruction of WTC 1 Top Part C

[Heiwa]

The official explanation of the WTC 1 9/11 destruction by NIST and Bazant is that the Upper Part C of the tower drops on and then crushes down the Lower Part A, while Part C remains intact. The first 3.1 seconds of the destruction is seen on below pictures; time 0, 2 and 3.1 seconds.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCstartx.jpg

According Bazant in the 2008 BLGB paper and NIST earlier Upper Part C shall be 100% intact during these 3.1 seconds (and later of course for another 10 seconds) and destruction crush down shall only take place in the blue rubble part below part C. What we are really seeing on above three pictures is local destruction of both parts A and C and not a one-way crush down of part A by an intact part C. In above picture right it is obvious that the upper part C is being destroyed after initiation of destruction. According Bazant no smoke or anything shall exit from part C.

Soon after the Upper Part C disappers completely in a cloud of smoke and rubble!

At the same time the Bazant theory goes up in smoke and becomes rubble!

Full story at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm (updated)

[MRC_Hans]

So, the unbelievable idea that the upper part should stay 100% intact is evidently wrong and it is actually being destroyed as expected. Fine! And?

Please provide references to where anybody of authority claims, except for the purpose of a simpified simulation, that the upper part should stay completely intact. Also provide references for anybody of any authority claiming that no smoke shall exit from the upper block (especially considering said upper block was on fire).

And just to be sure: By references I mean original references. Not references to your website. :rolleyes:

Hans

[Shrinker]

Go for it Heiwa. Debunk something that less than 10% of us actually believe is part of the "official story".

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140196

What you hadn't noticed that thread? How surprising...

[Sunstealer]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=880

Looks to me like the drop X approximates Y. Part C "destroys" the damaged part of Part A. Your picture clearly shows that Upper Part C isn't destroyed so what's your point?

[twinstead]

Hmmm. A point. What a concept.

[ozeco41]

Hmmm. A point. What a concept.

Is it that green lines are stronger than yellow ones?

..or did I miss something?
:D

[Seymour Butz]

So, the unbelievable idea that the upper part should stay 100% intact is evidently wrong and it is actually being destroyed as expected. Fine! And?

Please provide references to where anybody of authority claims, except for the purpose of a simpified simulation, that the upper part should stay completely intact. Also provide references for anybody of any authority claiming that no smoke shall exit from the upper block (especially considering said upper block was on fire).

And just to be sure: By references I mean original references. Not references to your website. :rolleyes:

Hans

Not only that, but show where Bazant says that the upper block stays intact for 3.1 seconds.

His analysis, IIRC, is for the initialization of collapse, not continuation.

What, you can't?

I guess that means you're lying again.

Imagine our surprise.....

[Heiwa]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=880

Looks to me like the drop X approximates Y. Part C "destroys" the damaged part of Part A. Your picture clearly shows that Upper Part C isn't destroyed so what's your point?

Upper part C, floors 97-111, shall remain intact, particular its lowest floor 97 that acts as a steel/concrete plough to crush part A. If upper part C is intact, undeformed, &c, no smoke, fire and debris shall get out of part C, as seen on picture. On the other hand everything below part C shall be crushed into rubble, part B, and air shall be ejected from below part B, etc. However, soon after part C is completely destroyed, while it should remain intact for at least another 10 seconds.

It is all described in the BLGB paper at
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%203-31-08.pdf

NIST report suggests that part C provides the energy to crush part A that lacks strain energy, but it seems it is part C that lacks strain energy and is crushed by part A during the first 3 seconds.

More is described in my paper submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and apparently still being peer reviewed.

[phunk]

How can you tell that C is destroyed, all I see is it disapear behind all the smoke that's squeezed out of A (or D, as some of us have been calling the damaged floors).

[twinstead]

More is described in my paper submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and apparently still being peer reviewed.

I'm sure it is. I'm sure they're all busy preparing protest signs to go out in the streets and demand another investigation into 911, aren't they Heiwa? There's no way they will have any criticism of your paper, is there?

Let us know when you get an answer back. I'm DYING to hear about it.

[Seymour Butz]

More is described in my paper submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and apparently still being peer reviewed used as ass wipe..



Fixed.....

[beachnut]

And the conclusion? Oh, the smoke covers the explosives that were not used? Where is the stuff you say did the WTC in? What is the big story as you fail to make a valid engineering point again. What engineering school did you go to?

What did it Heiwa, stop showing your ineptness in engineering and give the full blown delusion you have on 911?

[MRC_Hans]

Upper part C, floors 97-111, shall remain intact, particular its lowest floor 97 that acts as a steel/concrete plough to crush part A. If upper part C is intact, undeformed, &c, no smoke, fire and debris shall get out of part C, as seen on picture. On the other hand everything below part C shall be crushed into rubble, part B, and air shall be ejected from below part B, etc. However, soon after part C is completely destroyed, while it should remain intact for at least another 10 seconds.

It is all described in the BLGB paper at
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%203-31-08.pdf

NIST report suggests that part C provides the energy to crush part A that lacks strain energy, but it seems it is part C that lacks strain energy and is crushed by part A during the first 3 seconds.

More is described in my paper submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and apparently still being peer reviewed.Please answer my questions.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

OH, since you seem to be slow, I'll reiterate:

Upper part C, floors 97-111, shall remain intact, particular its lowest floor 97 that acts as a steel/concrete plough to crush part A.

Please point to any authoritative source that claims this except as a simplified simulation scenario for calculating the energies involved.

If upper part C is intact, undeformed, &c, no smoke, fire and debris shall get out of part C, as seen on picture.

Since the upper part C, despite perhaps structurally intact has uncontrolled fires raging on multiple floors, asking it to instantaneously stop smoking is a rather tall order.:cool:

On the other hand everything below part C shall be crushed into rubble, part B, and air shall be ejected from below part B, etc. However, soon after part C is completely destroyed, while it should remain intact for at least another 10 seconds.


It is all described in the BLGB paper at
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%203-31-08.pdf


Where it is distinctly explained that, while being destroyed slower than part A, part C is indeed being destroyed.

NIST report suggests that part C provides the energy to crush part A that lacks strain energy, but it seems it is part C that lacks strain energy and is crushed by part A during the first 3 seconds.

No, you cannot observe that, since bythe 3 second mark, all is obstructed by dust and smoke.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
NIST report suggests that part C provides the energy to crush part A that lacks strain energy, but it seems it is part C that lacks strain energy and is crushed by part A during the first 3 seconds.

More is described in my paper submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and apparently still being peer reviewed.I hope your paper explains the big mystery you are claiming was happening: That the upper section is getting crushed totally on the lower part which is of a similar structure.

Hans

[Heiwa]

Please point to any authoritative source that claims this except as a simplified simulation scenario for calculating the energies involved.
Hans

All authoritative (?) sources, FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Seffen, &c, in their simplified simulation scenarios of crush down of WTC 1 assume (sic) that part C remains intact until complete destruction of part A.

Any other authoritative source explaining a collision between two objects of identical structure followed by failures suggests that both objects are damaged.

If you can find a structure, where part C destroys part A after drop on A (C=1/10A), then visit the The Heiwa Challenge thread and win a prize.

[Shrinker]

All authoritative (?) sources, FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Seffen, &c, in their simplified simulation scenarios of crush down of WTC 1 assume (sic) that part C remains intact until complete destruction of part A.


Could you show one quote from any of these that claims that's actually what happened?

Do you understand the meaning of simplification?

[dtugg]

If you can find a structure, where part C destroys part A after drop on A (C=1/10A), then visit the The Heiwa Challenge thread and win a prize.

So there is a prize. What is it?

[Heiwa]

Could you show one quote from any of these that claims that's actually what happened?

Do you understand the meaning of simplification?

Simplification = process of making easy to understand? That's what I do in my posts.

Re quotes - just read FEMA's, NIST's, Bazant's and Seffen's papers.

[Shrinker]

Simplification = process of making easy to understand? That's what I do in my posts.


:jaw-dropp
Stupid. Try again.


Re quotes - just read FEMA's, NIST's, Bazant's and Seffen's papers.

Produce one quote from any of those papers which states that the upper section actually remained intact throughout the collapse.

[Shrinker]

So there is a prize. What is it?

The prize is a set of excuses why your structure was different to the WTC and proves nothing.

[boloboffin]

I missed the part where Bazant et al. claimed that this actually happened on 9/11? Could Heiwa point that out?

[Heiwa]

I missed the part where Bazant et al. claimed that this actually happened on 9/11? Could Heiwa point that out?

Bazant in BLGB paper:

"It is found that, immediately after the first critical story collapses, crush fronts will propagate both downwards and upwards. However, the crush-up front will advance into the overlying story only by about 1% of its original height h and then stop. Consequently, the effect of the initial two-way crush is imperceptible and the hypothesis that the crush-down and crush-up cannot
occur simultaneously is almost exact."

So upper part C (53 m tall) is only damaged 1% of h (3.7 m) or 0.037 m or 0.07% of total height at impact (two-way crush), while part A (abt 360 m tall) is subject to one-way crush down.

Can you see that part C is only damaged 0.07% in the pictures of post #1?

You really have to read the NIST and Bazant reports for background info to participate in this thread.

[boloboffin]

Bazant in BLGB paper:

"It is found that, immediately after the first critical story collapses, crush fronts will propagate both downwards and upwards. However, the crush-up front will advance into the overlying story only by about 1% of its original height h and then stop. Consequently, the effect of the initial two-way crush is imperceptible and the hypothesis that the crush-down and crush-up cannot
occur simultaneously is almost exact."

So upper part C (53 m tall) is only damaged 1% of h (3.7 m) or 0.037 m or 0.07% of total height at impact (two-way crush), while part A (abt 360 m tall) is subject to one-way crush down.

Can you see that part C is only damaged 0.07% in the pictures of post #1?

You really have to read the NIST and Bazant reports for background info to participate in this thread.

Please point out where Bazant is actually claiming that this happened on 9/11. I think you don't understand what you're reading.

[Heiwa]

Please point out where Bazant is actually claiming that this happened on 9/11. I think you don't understand what you're reading.

The BLGB paper quoted was issued 2008. Bazant makes the same suggestion in his original 2001 paper. Both papers have the WTC Towers in their titles and try to explain the strange destructions by a One-way Crush-down theory that nobody in the structural damage analysis community has ever heard of before.

[boloboffin]

The BLGB paper quoted was issued 2008. Bazant makes the same suggestion in his original 2001 paper. Both papers have the WTC Towers in their titles and try to explain the strange destructions by a One-way Crush-down theory that nobody in the structural damage analysis community has ever heard of before.

I believe the suggestion was not that this was exactly as it happened. In fact, that the collapse happened this way was called "unlikely" by Bazant.

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.

I believe that if you read this paragraph to actually understand what it says instead of, for your own purposes, grabbing the hypothesis examined and pretending that Bazant claimed it to be how the towers actually fell, you will come closer to understanding what it is that Bazant is trying to do in this series of papers. Would you like to have a discussion about this paragraph?

[tsig]

The BLGB paper quoted was issued 2008. Bazant makes the same suggestion in his original 2001 paper. Both papers have the WTC Towers in their titles and try to explain the strange destructions by a One-way Crush-down theory that nobody in the structural damage analysis community has ever heard of before.

"One-way Crush-down theory"

Some call it gravity.

[Heiwa]

I believe that if you read this paragraph to actually understand what it says instead of, for your own purposes, grabbing the hypothesis examined and pretending that Bazant claimed it to be how the towers actually fell, you will come closer to understanding what it is that Bazant is trying to do in this series of papers. Would you like to have a discussion about this paragraph?

So Bazant says: If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.

My understanding is that the building (parts A and C) will first compress due to impact forces, then that some elements will be plastically deformed, and that finally one element will fail ... and not the complete building.
Actually, the first element to fail is in upper part C, if impact forces were applied, according my calculations. And no building fails if you drop a little part C on it A.

But let's face it, is there any evidence that any impact forces were ever applied? To part A and C.

For that you need a jolt ... but where is it?

Sorry, I put you on ignore.

[boloboffin]

So Bazant says: If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.

My understanding is that the building (parts A and C) will first compress due to impact forces, then that some elements will be plastically deformed, and that finally one element will fail ... and not the complete building.
Actually, the first element to fail is in upper part C, if impact forces were applied, according my calculations. And no building fails if you drop a little part C on it A.

But let's face it, is there any evidence that any impact forces were ever applied? To part A and C.

For that you need a jolt ... but where is it?

Sorry, I put you on ignore.

It must be comforting to you that you use Bazant's own words to build it, but by disavowing his actual, discernable intent, you show that both yours and Szamboti's efforts are nothing but flogging a straw man.

[GlennB]

So Bazant says: If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.


Yes.

This is the whole point. If the theoretical scenario most likely to cause collapse arrest still allows collapse, then all real scenarios will be even more damaging.

This is the point you cannot comprehend.

[boloboffin]

Yes.

This is the whole point. If the theoretical scenario most likely to cause collapse arrest still allows collapse, then all real scenarios will be even more damaging.

This is the point you cannot comprehend.

And after having constructed this theoretical scenario, Bazant has been using it to construct equations to help understand the various dimensions of building collapse. It's as if he were an artist who starts to draw a face by rough-sketching various geometric shapes, and Heiwa and Szamboti are ridiculing him because faces aren't composed of rigid geometrical shapes.

[tanabear]

Please point out where Bazant is actually claiming that this happened on 9/11. I think you don't understand what you're reading.

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up , each of which is governed by a different differential equation. During the crush-down, the falling upper part of tower, having a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B), is crushing the lower part (zone A) with negligible damage to itself. During the crush-up, the moving upper part C of tower is being crushed at bottom by the compacted debris B resting on the ground."

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

[boloboffin]

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up , each of which is governed by a different differential equation. During the crush-down, the falling upper part of tower, having a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B), is crushing the lower part (zone A) with negligible damage to itself. During the crush-up, the moving upper part C of tower is being crushed at bottom by the compacted debris B resting on the ground."

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

Please point out where Bazant is saying that his optimistic best case scenario actually happened on 9/11 in this quotation. I don't see it.

I see a generalized situation for which Bazant will be developing a number of specific equations over time. I don't see the claim that a specific set of circumstances absolutely did happen on 9/11. Do you understand the difference?

[tsig]

So Bazant says: If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution.

My understanding is that the building (parts A and C) will first compress due to impact forces, then that some elements will be plastically deformed, and that finally one element will fail ... and not the complete building.
Actually, the first element to fail is in upper part C, if impact forces were applied, according my calculations. And no building fails if you drop a little part C on it A.

But let's face it, is there any evidence that any impact forces were ever applied? To part A and C.

For that you need a jolt ... but where is it?

Sorry, I put you on ignore.

You seem to be banning yourself from the forum one member at a time.

[tanabear]

Please point out where Bazant is saying that his optimistic best case scenario actually happened on 9/11 in this quotation. I don't see it.

I see a generalized situation for which Bazant will be developing a number of specific equations over time. I don't see the claim that a specific set of circumstances absolutely did happen on 9/11. Do you understand the difference?

"Fig. 1 shows the calculated evolution of displacement and velocity during the collapse of the first overlying story in two-way crush. The result is that the crush-up stops when the first overlying story is squashed by the distance of only about 1.0% of its original height for the North Tower, and only by about 0.7% for the South Tower these values are about 11 or 8 times greater than the elastic limit of column deformation. Why is the distance smaller for the South Tower even though the falling upper part is much more massive? That is because the initial crush-up velocity is similar for both towers, whereas the columns are much stronger in proportion to the weight carried."

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and accurate."

Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

p.s. Bazant seems rather specific in his claims. If Bazant has developed a general model(mathematical assumptions without empirical foundation) that does not match observation, then it should be scrapped.

[boloboffin]

"Fig. 1 shows the calculated evolution of displacement and velocity during the collapse of the first overlying story in two-way crush. The result is that the crush-up stops when the first overlying story is squashed by the distance of only about 1.0% of its original height for the North Tower, and only by about 0.7% for the South Tower these values are about 11 or 8 times greater than the elastic limit of column deformation. Why is the distance smaller for the South Tower even though the falling upper part is much more massive? That is because the initial crush-up velocity is similar for both towers, whereas the columns are much stronger in proportion to the weight carried."

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of one-way crushing i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and accurate."

Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

p.s. Bazant seems rather specific in his claims. If Bazant has developed a general model(mathematical assumptions without empirical foundation) that does not match observation, then it should be scrapped.

"Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and accurate"

Do you understand that this statement is underscoring that the simplified analysis was not "how it happened on 9/11"?

I mean, I appreciate the help that you're giving me in finding quotes that prove my point and all, but I kind of thought that you would try to support your point.

[Galileo]

The official explanation of the WTC 1 9/11 destruction by NIST and Bazant is that the Upper Part C of the tower drops on and then crushes down the Lower Part A, while Part C remains intact. The first 3.1 seconds of the destruction is seen on below pictures; time 0, 2 and 3.1 seconds.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTCstartx.jpg

According Bazant in the 2008 BLGB paper and NIST earlier Upper Part C shall be 100% intact during these 3.1 seconds (and later of course for another 10 seconds) and destruction crush down shall only take place in the blue rubble part below part C. What we are really seeing on above three pictures is local destruction of both parts A and C and not a one-way crush down of part A by an intact part C. In above picture right it is obvious that the upper part C is being destroyed after initiation of destruction. According Bazant no smoke or anything shall exit from part C.

Soon after the Upper Part C disappers completely in a cloud of smoke and rubble!

At the same time the Bazant theory goes up in smoke and becomes rubble!

Full story at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm (updated)

Good post.

Brazant's theories have been proven false. They only attract attention on conspiracy websites.

No real scientists have confirmed his highly speculative paper.

:boxedin:

[Heiwa]

Another set of pictures showing Upper part C going up in smoke is:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg

from a well known video. The destruction of Upper part C is very quick, so many believes it is dropping down (?) as Lower part A afterwards starts to be demolished from top down. But the destruction of Lower part A has nothing to do with Upper part C!

[Arus808]

again galileo shows what a fraud he is along with heiwa

[Bananaman]

So, Hiewa, in your fantasy world, once the skyscraper that has been smashed into by a jet liner and has fires burning all over the place from burning jet fuel that has ignited everything, and spread God knows everywhere, suddenly has several floors give way and the top third (or whatever) of the building start to crash down on it, what, in your opinion, should have happened?

Oh yes, A, B and C.

Plonker.

Bananaman (The Articulate).

[NobbyNobbs]

Why is there yet another thread on this? Heiwa has started at least two others on the same subject. Shouldn't they be merged?


At what point is this considered spam?

[KreeL]

At JREF, it is only considered spam when non-toofers can't refute the evidence. Should be any time now.

[Bananaman]

Kreel:
At JREF, it is only considered spam when non-toofers can't refute the evidence.

I may have missed something. Did you say something about evidence?

Bananaman.

[KreeL]

You don't consider laws of science evidence, bananaman?:confused: Neither do many other JREFers. Welcome to the forum.

[apathoid]

Why is there yet another thread on this? Heiwa has started at least two others on the same subject. Shouldn't they be merged?


At what point is this considered spam?


I was just about to make the exact same post.

How many threads do you need Heiwa? I have an idea. When you want to reiterate your one way crushing/WTC = matchboxes/WTC = a lemon(lemons?)/WTC = sponges/WTC = pizza boxes/WTC = sawdust and glue cubes/WTC = ABC baby blocks theories, is it too much to ask that you do it in one your existing threads below? You are starting new threads to repeat the same nonsense over and over and it's against the forum rules.


The Destruction of WTC 1 Top Part C (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140260) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140260) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140260) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140260&page=2))
Heiwa (15th April 2009)

Why a one-way Crush down is not possible (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=2) 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=3) 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=4) 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=5) 6 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=6) 7 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=7) 8 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=8) 9 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=9) 10 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=10) ... Last Page (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047&page=18)) Heiwa (12th April 2009)

The Heiwa Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=2) 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=3) 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=4) 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=5) 6 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=6) 7 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=7) 8 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=8) 9 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=9) 10 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=10) ... Last Page (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715&page=13))
Heiwa (28th March 2009)

Sawdust-n-glue cubes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137740) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137740) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137740) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137740&page=2)) Heiwa (17th March 2009)

Moderated: Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=2) 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=3) 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=4) 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=5) 6 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=6) 7 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=7) 8 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=8) 9 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=9) 10 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=10) ... Last Page (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271&page=51)) Heiwa (10th January 2009)

One-way crushing theory (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138890) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138890) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138890) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138890&page=2))
Heiwa (31st March 2009)

Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318&page=2) 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318&page=3) 4 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318&page=4) 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318&page=5) 6 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318&page=6) 7 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318&page=7) 8 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318&page=8)) Heiwa (26th October 2008)

Heiwa’s Lemons Experiment (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135280) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135280) Heiwa (11th February 2009)

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134612) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134612) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134612) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134612&page=2) 3 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134612&page=3)) Heiwa (3rd February 2009)

Heiwa's Match Box Experiment (for beginners) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129091) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129091) Heiwa (18th November 2008)

[Heiwa]

Why is there yet another thread on this? Heiwa has started at least two others on the same subject. Shouldn't they be merged?


At what point is this considered spam?

This is a new thread about a specific topic: The Destruction of WTC 1 Top Part C. Other threads I have started are about other 9/11 related topics, e.g. Why a one-way Crush down is not possible, where Bazant's theory about it is debunked.
The Heiwa Challenge is a challenge to produce any structure that can demonstrate the WTC 1 complete destruction by gravity only.
You see - different topics but related to the subject forum 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. I get good feed back (except from abuse) so I can improve my web pages about the particular topics that interest me.

[KreeL]

That resembles a list of stone-cold pwnages. Why? Because it is.

[apathoid]

At JREF, it is only considered spam when non-toofers can't refute the evidence. Should be any time now.


Why does it have to be non-truthers? Just step on your bathroom scale and when the needle spikes and then settles, you've just refuted Heiwa!!
So easy a caveman tw00fer can do it!!

Seriously, are you even aware of what Heiwa has compared the WTC to? Read the OPs in my post above. Heiwas "material" is so silly, I'm still considering the possibility that he's a debunker having a go at the truthers...no one can possibly be this inept.


That resembles a list of stone-cold pwnages. Why? Because it is.

mm, nevermind. I forgot for a second that you are that troll that I scolded a few others for responding to. Next round is on me beachy.

[beachnut]

. Next round is on me beachy.
I just did the same elsewhere; even up

The OP author owes infinite beer for his web page of god awful crap.

Full story at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm) (updated)

Reading it is tough?
Rubble cannot crush down a structure (heiwa said so)
Truth is barney rubble can crush down a structure.

[Heiwa]

So, the unbelievable idea that the upper part should stay 100% intact is evidently wrong and it is actually being destroyed as expected. Fine! And?

Please provide references to where anybody of authority claims, except for the purpose of a simpified simulation, that the upper part should stay completely intact. Also provide references for anybody of any authority claiming that no smoke shall exit from the upper block (especially considering said upper block was on fire).

And just to be sure: By references I mean original references. Not references to your website. :rolleyes:

Hans

If you visit the link again you'll find a new reference showing how a 25x25 meters section, more than 100 tons, of the West wall of the Upper Part C from floors #99-106, is ejected at high speed and leads the rubble fountain down! According NIST no such destruction can take place! You know PE applied on Lower part A, &c. No, sorry! The first structure to be destroyed is the Upper Part C.

[Holler Hoojer]

Let me start by saying that I don't know everything that happened at WTC and there might be some puzzling events. Heck, we're still figuring out the Titanic wreck.

But, if "truthers" were to spend even 10% of their effort on learning some basic engineering, not only would they quit some of this nonsense, but they'd be personally better off. What is this this fascination with propounding on theories about which they know nothing at all?

[Heiwa]

Let me start by saying that I don't know everything that happened at WTC and there might be some puzzling events. Heck, we're still figuring out the Titanic wreck.

But, if "truthers" were to spend even 10% of their effort on learning some basic engineering, not only would they quit some of this nonsense, but they'd be personally better off. What is this this fascination with propounding on theories about which they know nothing at all?

Topic is The Destruction of WTC 1 Top Part C. According NIST and experts like Bazant and Seffen the Top Part C , floors 98-111, shall remain intact during a one-way crush down of part A below, floors 97-0 and get destroyed last. If Top Part C does not remain intact, it cannot one-way crush down part A.
If you study the fountain of rubble produced prior the destruction of part A on the West side, you'll find that among the first rubble thrown out is a 25x25 m, 100+ ton steel section that comes from the wall of Top Part C between floors 99-106 of the West wall! There are probably more of those wall panels in the North, East and South sides of the rubble fountain, if you study videos of those. It indicates that Top Part C is blown apart before the destruction of Part A starts. Maybe floors inside Part C are later dropping down as there are no walls to keep them up but that should not produce any serious damage. This is the old pancake theory that nobody adheres to any longer.

[tsig]

Another set of pictures showing Upper part C going up in smoke is:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg

from a well known video. The destruction of Upper part C is very quick, so many believes it is dropping down (?) as Lower part A afterwards starts to be demolished from top down. But the destruction of Lower part A has nothing to do with Upper part C!

Do you know Sweaty Yeti? You have similar graphic styles.

[twinstead]

I've never seen one person start so many different threads about the same subject and say exactly the same thing over and over and over again in each of them

Congratulations Heiwa.

[phunk]

Topic is The Destruction of WTC 1 Top Part C. According NIST and experts like Bazant and Seffen the Top Part C , floors 98-111, shall remain intact during a one-way crush down of part A below, floors 97-0 and get destroyed last. If Top Part C does not remain intact, it cannot one-way crush down part A.
If you study the fountain of rubble produced prior the destruction of part A on the West side, you'll find that among the first rubble thrown out is a 25x25 m, 100+ ton steel section that comes from the wall of Top Part C between floors 99-106 of the West wall! There are probably more of those wall panels in the North, East and South sides of the rubble fountain, if you study videos of those. It indicates that Top Part C is blown apart before the destruction of Part A starts. Maybe floors inside Part C are later dropping down as there are no walls to keep them up but that should not produce any serious damage. This is the old pancake theory that nobody adheres to any longer.

Can you show us a video of this large piece of C coming off before A is damaged?