Structural Engineer Kamal Obeid compares WTC 7 to a beer can

[newton3376]

In this (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6786531) presentation on May 8th Structural Engineer Kamal Obeid compared WTC7 to a beer can (the comment is about 53 minutes into the video).

He said something similar to: "WTC7 is like a big huge beer can with perforations in it so it performs like a beer can in a way when it is failing".

Can someone decipher this for me? I'm not getting the comparison he is trying to make here....is he saying the building should crumble and fall like a beer can?

Or is he saying something else? I'm a bit confused by the "beer can" analogy...

[triforcharity]

In this (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/6786531) presentation on May 8th Structural Engineer Kamal Obeid compared WTC7 to a beer can (the comment is about 53 minutes into the video).

He said something similar to: "WTC7 is like a big huge beer can with perforations in it so it performs like a beer can in a way when it is failing".

Can someone decipher this for me? I'm not getting the comparison he is trying to make here....is he saying the building should crumble and fall like a beer can?

Or is he saying something else? I'm a bit confused by the "beer can" analogy...

I think the guy tried too many of his own experiments, and drank the beer first to get the empty cans.....

[Sam.I.Am]

Well then. If we're going to compare adult beverage containers to buildings then I'd like to know why engineers don't build buildings out of Jack Daniels bottles. I can stand on one and it won't break. That's got to be much stronger than a beer can. I mean I weigh at least 200 lbs (I sound fat don't I?), and an empty bottle can't weigh more than a pound at best so that's a 200 to 1 ratio. Right? Just slap a coat of paint on it where you don't want people to see in...

[fourtoe]

I am aware of the beer can experiment but it has more to do with neutral stress and geology:
http://pics.livejournal.com/rosiedee/pic/0000acpc

Jim Fetzer made a better analogy to beer cans when talking about the crushed cars at WTC, "Those cars were crushed like beer cans after a frat party!" or something similar.

[fezzic]

I think Mr. Obeid was basically saying that the external framing of 7 WTC was analogous to a beer can.

I don't know if he was using that analogy with the idea that if you put a beer can or soda can on a flat surface and then evenly load the top, by say carefully stepping on the top of the can, often the can will be able to support a very heavy load. Then if you tap or dimple the sides of the can, it will fail catastrophically, often straight down, pancaking to a fraction of its normal height. I don't know if that is what he meant or not.

I poked around to get to that statement in the video and I didn't wait to listen to the rest of his talk.

[Oystein]

...
I don't know if he was using that analogy with the idea that if you put a beer can or soda can on a flat surface and then evenly load the top, by say carefully stepping on the top of the can, often the can will be able to support a very heavy load. Then if you tap or dimple the sides of the can, it will fail catastrophically, often straight down, pancaking to a fraction of its normal height. I don't know if that is what he meant or not.
...

Possible! We did that as kids. Often you did not even need to poke or dimple the can while you stand on it. The slightest touch with your fingertip sufficed as collapse initiation event. I guess the support structure was strained to the max, loads fully distributed, and any local variation would lead to buckling and rapid collapse progression, as further load distribution will bring every other support element to instant overload. And so you went straight down at pretty much free fall speed.

I think today's cans are made of thinner material than they used to (and with Europe's recycling laws and Germany's insistence on bottled beer, if you can't have it from a keg, I have not held a beverage can in my hand for years now), so not sure if you still can play the game and not crush the can before you have balanced your entire static load on it.

[njslim]

Toga! Toga! Toga!

[moorea34]

It's an excelent comparison. I use it also when I want to explain the WTC7 collapse to my students.

When the beer (or cola) can is full, it can sustain a great load...

But when it's empty, if you put all your weight on it and you create a little perturbation lateraly (even a very very weak chock), it "collapses"... quasi symetrically...

It's an instability, called "local buckling", that appears for thin structure compressed.
http://www.ansys.com/solutions/solid-mechanics-technology.asp


For WTC7, the material is not continuous, like beer cans, but the idea is the same since we have internal collapse before the frontage collapse. For the columns, it's a "simple" buckling due a hight slenderness ratio : http://www.uoregon.edu/~struct/courseware/461/461_lectures/461_lecture30/461_lecture30.html

;)

[Telltale Tom]

Kamal is one of only 40 structural engineers who support ae911truth.

As he says in the video his focus is on WTC7. You see it is much more difficult for structural engineers to see anything wrong with the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

The beer can analogy is a bit odd if you can find a can with a core and columns in it then it might work for you.

I think he is misled when he says that main girders will deflect in fire and not push against the column. They will do both. As they deflect they push against the column and indeed the deflection can amplify the thrust of the bottom flange against the column.

However he is correct when he says that the collapse sequence video from NIST is not consistent with the actual failure. In the NIST model the internal structure fails and then the perimeter fails like a beer can from the top down. Whereas the floors maintained enough integrity to pull the wall down uniformly with the collapsing internal floors.

Not sure what NIST's explanation/excuse about this is as I have always thought that the WTC1 and 2 collapses were more important.

[Newtons Bit]

Kamal is one of only 40 structural engineers who support ae911truth.

And he's a complete :rule10'ing loon who has no idea what he's talking about. A beer can is not a valid analogy for the collapse of WTC7. WTC7 collapsed due to the loss of lateral stability from the floors. You can't represent that with a beer can as it has no "floor" element.

[Telltale Tom]

K

However he is correct when he says that the collapse sequence video from NIST is not consistent with the actual failure. In the NIST model the internal structure fails and then the perimeter fails like a beer can from the top down. Whereas the floors maintained enough integrity to pull the wall down uniformly with the collapsing internal floors.

Not sure what NIST's explanation/excuse about this is as I have always thought that the WTC1 and 2 collapses were more important.

I have now done 1 hour research of extensive research to find out the discrepancy between the movie showing the NIST failure method and the actual failure method. If you look at NIST NCSTAR1-9A Figs 4.43 to 4.48. there is a scale, so that all the horizontal movements have been amplified so that you can see what happens. The scale says the movements are between -1m and 1m, thats +/-3.28ft. Although the images seem to appear that the horizontal movements are more like 30ft, they are not. Engineers do that type of scaling so that they can see what happens.... its really annoying to some architects and even some engineers who don't understand that type of thing.

I am sure that next time Kamal and Richard show the movie they will explain that the main reason it looks so different from the actual failure is the scale factor.

Any other ideas?

[sheeplesnshills]

Possible! We did that as kids. Often you did not even need to poke or dimple the can while you stand on it. The slightest touch with your fingertip sufficed as collapse initiation event. I guess the support structure was strained to the max, loads fully distributed, and any local variation would lead to buckling and rapid collapse progression, as further load distribution will bring every other support element to instant overload. And so you went straight down at pretty much free fall speed.

I think today's cans are made of thinner material than they used to (and with Europe's recycling laws and Germany's insistence on bottled beer, if you can't have it from a keg, I have not held a beverage can in my hand for years now), so not sure if you still can play the game and not crush the can before you have balanced your entire static load on it.

Yeah it still works fine with US soda cans. Its actually a great example of buckling reducing the strength of a can able to support a 200lb male (me) and instantly failing when tapped on the side. A beam when it buckles has very little strength compared to the original and I can see how a steel framed building could fall surprisingly fast once it has started moving down.

[sheeplesnshills]

And he's a complete :rule10'ing loon who has no idea what he's talking about. A beer can is not a valid analogy for the collapse of WTC7. WTC7 collapsed due to the loss of lateral stability from the floors. You can't represent that with a beer can as it has no "floor" element.

A stack of cans would be closer:)

[DGM]

A stack of cans would be closer:)
I'll work on that tonight for you. :D

[Newtons Bit]

I'll work on that tonight for you. :D

As if you needed an excuse...

[alienentity]

I have now done 1 hour research of extensive research to find out the discrepancy between the movie showing the NIST failure method and the actual failure method. If you look at NIST NCSTAR1-9A Figs 4.43 to 4.48. there is a scale, so that all the horizontal movements have been amplified so that you can see what happens. The scale says the movements are between -1m and 1m, thats +/-3.28ft. Although the images seem to appear that the horizontal movements are more like 30ft, they are not. Engineers do that type of scaling so that they can see what happens.... its really annoying to some architects and even some engineers who don't understand that type of thing.

I am sure that next time Kamal and Richard show the movie they will explain that the main reason it looks so different from the actual failure is the scale factor.

Any other ideas?

I believe Mackey made the same observation a while back.

DGM - I was joking about the stronger center column in the achimspok thread. Just amplifying the red herring of the OP.:D

[newton3376]

And he's a complete :rule10'ing loon who has no idea what he's talking about.

I assumed this was the case....

[R.Mackey]

I believe Mackey made the same observation a while back.

I did, as others had, but it turns out it's wrong. The NIST simulation actually does indicate much more displacement. Their color scale, however, maxes out at +/- 1 m displacement. This much displacement basically means "total failure" so they don't bother creating new colors for parts that have displaced even more.

The scale is intended to illustrate the lesser displacements, the ones that actually tell you what's going on with the structure's integrity, rather than try to detail the kinetic behavior of parts that are basically failed and flying around loose.

Thread is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5891981).

And, in case it needed to be said, Kamal is a fool.

[Telltale Tom]

Ah so I guess it needs more than an hour of research.

So I guess that NIST's LS-DYNA model underestimates the strength of the connections to the perimeter frame, as the internal floors fail before the outer shell. So it does not represent the actual failure mechanism of WTC7 and what was the point of putting it in the WTC report?

Is this grounds for a new investigation?

[dafydd]

I have now done 1 hour research of extensive research to find out the discrepancy between the movie showing the NIST failure method and the actual failure method. If you look at NIST NCSTAR1-9A Figs 4.43 to 4.48. there is a scale, so that all the horizontal movements have been amplified so that you can see what happens. The scale says the movements are between -1m and 1m, thats +/-3.28ft. Although the images seem to appear that the horizontal movements are more like 30ft, they are not. Engineers do that type of scaling so that they can see what happens.... its really annoying to some architects and even some engineers who don't understand that type of thing.

I am sure that next time Kamal and Richard show the movie they will explain that the main reason it looks so different from the actual failure is the scale factor.

Any other ideas?

Ooooh,a whole hour!

[rwguinn]

Ooooh,a whole hour!
"Teach me how to be an engineer. I don't care if it takes all day!" Dilbert

[R.Mackey]

Ah so I guess it needs more than an hour of research.

So I guess that NIST's LS-DYNA model underestimates the strength of the connections to the perimeter frame, as the internal floors fail before the outer shell. So it does not represent the actual failure mechanism of WTC7 and what was the point of putting it in the WTC report?

Why would you guess that?

Is this grounds for a new investigation?

Your guess? Not really, no. :p

[Telltale Tom]

Why would you guess that?
:p

Why would I guess that the NIST model has underestimated the diaphragm strength? Well the NIST model has gross deformation of 10ft or more in several locations at the upper levels, prior to the buckling of the floors at the lower level. We therefore know that the NIST LSDyna model is not consistent with the observations of what happened.

The NIST model does not model the diaphragm very accurately and probably under-estimates its strength. You can surmize this by looking at the local failure of elements, which appear to have very limited influence on adjacent elements. Of course it is very difficult to model diaphragms in a failure when the force paths may change rapidly from shell action to bending elements to tensile membrane action.

If the catenary and diaphragm action was more robust then the diaphragm would hold the shape of the building better before global failure occurs.

Of course the alternative argument would be that the explosives survived the fire. And that a government agent waited 8 hours before detonating the explosives ( probably overcome with guilt from killing thousands on WTC 1 and 2 ). When it was time to go home and get his dinner, he first detonated column 79 and then he detonated the 24 internal core columns. These were special wireless controlled detonations using a new high intensity noiseless nano-thermite charge that instantaneously horizontally cut through the thick steel columns. This would be followed almost 2 seconds later by similar charges on the 55 perimeter columns, that had also survived the fire, that noiselessly and flashlessly cut through the thick steel columns. And the whole detonation managed to take place without one flash or bang being recorded. They are so devious these government agents.!

I guess people need to make their own minds up.

[R.Mackey]

Except, of course, we know from the penthouse collapse that those "diaphragms" you mention (actually beam elements) were GONE before the outer perimeter descended. You argue from a false premise.

The displacement model is not going to fit very well, nor does it have to. The purpose of the model was to provide a qualitative comparison between two contrasting scenarios, and no more than that. (I boldy predict that no Truther in the world will ever understand this point.)

The second half of your post is funnier^W better.

[Telltale Tom]

Except, of course, we know from the penthouse collapse that those "diaphragms" you mention (actually beam elements) were GONE before the outer perimeter descended. You argue from a false premise.
Good point. But how do explain that there was very little distortion to the shell of the building during failure. It could be that the penthouse went down as a local failure around Col 79 but there were still large parts of the floor hanging from the perimeter.

The displacement model is not going to fit very well, nor does it have to. The purpose of the model was to provide a qualitative comparison between two contrasting scenarios, and no more than that. (I boldy predict that no Truther in the world will ever understand this point.)

Well perhaps because its not true. If you read the abstract or Exec Summary they do not mention that the purpose was a comparitive analysis with different levels of damage. They say it was to understand the global failure response of the building.

Now if the building had fallen over sideways you would have said it was an invalid analysis. So why do you say its not an invalid analysis if the building shell warps substantially when it clearly did not. One thing is for certain is that NISt were not trying to fiddle the results to prove that their analysis accurately reflected what happened. I can imagine that it would be quite easy to fix that warping in the analysis.

If Nist give the ae9/11truth the model I am sure we could prove almost anything.

Anyway its much easier to argue about the failure without consulting any papers or reading facts. Would you mind if we just keep comparing it to a controlled demolition and insult each other.

[R.Mackey]

Good point. But how do explain that there was very little distortion to the shell of the building during failure. It could be that the penthouse went down as a local failure around but there were still large parts of the floor hanging from the perimeter.

There's no reason to suspect that. Penthouse collapse == core is gone, and once that happens there is no significant stiffening contribution from the floors no matter how much happens to be hanging on. Indeed, parts of it still hanging would load the perimeter eccentrically, and actually make things worse.

Well perhaps because its not true. If you read the abstract or Exec Summary they do not mention that the purpose was a comparitive analysis with different levels of damage. They say it was to understand the global failure response of the building.

The bolded part is what happened, but it's not what I wrote. You must have gotten it from the source. Just owned yourself. There is also no inconsistency with "understanding the global failure response of the building" -- both apply.

Now if the building had fallen over sideways you would have said it was an invalid analysis. So why do you say its not an invalid analysis if the building shell warps substantially when it clearly did not. One thing is for certain is that NISt were not trying to fiddle the results to prove that their analysis accurately reflected what happened. I can imagine that it would be quite easy to fix that warping in the analysis.

Incoherent. (FYI, jokes are only funny if they make some kind of sense.)

If Nist give the ae9/11truth the model I am sure we could prove almost anything.

AE911T couldn't prove 1 + 1 = 2 with a year of uninterrupted effort and a $100,000 budget.

Anyway its much easier to argue about the failure without consulting any papers or reading facts. Would you mind if we just keep comparing it to a controlled demolition and insult each other.

That's not an argument. It's just contradiction.

[Sam.I.Am]

I would like to know why R. Mackey hasn't responded to my assertion that intact Jack Daniels bottles aren't a good source of building materials as long as you spray paint out the parts that you don't want people to see into. :D

[dudalb]

Nice try by Kamal, but still not in same class as the Cardboard Box "Demonstration".

[newton3376]

Nice try by Kamal, but still not in same class as the Cardboard Box "Demonstration".

Gage's cardboard box deomonstration was an instant classic....

He essentially summed up the entire truth movement with that one moronic, insane act......

[Telltale Tom]

I am a bit dissappointed with your response R. I thought you were one of those people who were interested in a purely scientific examination of the facts. I will have to read up before responding to your other comments. But lets deal with the key one: what was the purpose of the NIST LS Dyna analysis.

If you read the abstract or Exec Summary they do not mention that the purpose was a comparitive analysis with different levels of damage, this is only your assertion and is a "fact" only in your mind. NIST say it was to understand the global failure response of the building.

The NIST LSdyna model shows a failure that was nothing like the actual failure. You say it does not matter but you cannot say why. You appear to be following the same "scientific" approach as our leader the great Richard Gage.

[sheeplesnshills]

Gage's cardboard box deomonstration was an instant classic....

He essentially summed up the entire truth movement with that one moronic, insane act......


Its hard to imagine how somehow could graduate and work as an architect with so little grasp of basic physics. Its just as well that the real engineering on buildings is done by structural engineers not architects!

[newton3376]

Its hard to imagine how somehow could graduate and work as an architect with so little grasp of basic physics. Its just as well that the real engineering on buildings is done by structural engineers not architects!

Agreed....Gage is one of those "surprises" for me in the truth movement...

I couldn't care less what someone like Fetzer has to say...but people like Gage, Jones, Woods, Szamboti....they really should know better.

[Newtons Bit]

I would like to know why R. Mackey hasn't responded to my assertion that intact Jack Daniels bottles aren't a good source of building materials as long as you spray paint out the parts that you don't want people to see into. :D

1 cu-ft of steel weighs 490lb.
It has a capacity of 5,184,000lb.

Zomg 10,580:1 ratio!

[alienentity]

The NIST LSdyna model shows a failure that was nothing like the actual failure.

False and incorrect. And a baseless claim - 'nothing like' means literally without any similarity. Prove it.

[MIKILLINI]

So, now a beer can comparison to WTC 7 collapse? Adding that to pizza boxes reveals what these people are doing before they make a hypothesis.

[Telltale Tom]

False and incorrect. And a baseless claim - 'nothing like' means literally without any similarity. Prove it.

So I guess that you did not notice that in the NIST's Lsdyna model that the East edge of the building moves laterally by more than 40ft before any vertical collapse when no such movement was observed in the actual collapse. I guess that is a small detail to you or no different to a 2ft movement.

But I will admit it looked nothing like an alien entity eating an ice-cream
I always thought that the assertion was that the truth movement never looked at anything in detail

[achimspok]

False and incorrect. And a baseless claim - 'nothing like' means literally without any similarity. Prove it.
FALSE AND INCORRECT

Proven a long time ago. Try the search function in this very forum.

Mackey is wrong. Penthouse collapse doesn't mean == core is gone. It's just a bit like that.

Proven: The east penthouse fell at about free fall acceleration through the core area causing a bubble-like deformation of the exterior wall without windows breakage.

Proven: The middle section of the WTC7 core failed simoultaneously - in the sense of straight down - and started to fall at free fall acceleration too. There is a tiny little "fade in" of abou 2 or 3 frames in a NTSC video.

Proven: The falling middle section of the core pulled the north face inward almost without downward component until the north face failed at some very low elevation. The onset of downward movement of the northface is slightly more than gravity for a little more than 1 second.
Hence, the core section was still connected to the perimeter + spanned like a bow + shot the perimeter down > gravity until core and perimeter moved at the same speed and acceleration as a unit

Conclusion 1: The NIST FEA is bullsh**
- because of a slow disintegration of the entire core until the perimeter lost all stability and therefore sagged down somehow

Proven: NIST measured bullsh** and probably on purpose just to support their own theory from the Interim Report some years before. (That also answers the question what all the NIST engineers did all the years. They had to make it fit.)
NIST measured the roofline of the penthouse and defined it as roof elevation!!! In other words, their calculation misses about 2 floor heights.
NIST measured the transition from the disappearing penthouse roofline into the inward bowing of the actual roofline. They interpreted the data as "slow downward" motion.

I could go on for a while about that NIST nonsense but it really seems to be a waste of time since all the "Freedom for NIST" fighters around here where also around when I first discussed this very topic.
Obviously not one of you was able to understand what a big brown mountain of "engineering" is defended here.

Let me say it again: The NIST-simulation of the WTC7 collapse has NOTHING to do with the actual event because the crucial part of the mechanism is completely wrong in the sense of cause and result.

PS. alienentity, have you ever checked your nonsensical addition of falling building parts for a longer lasting "total collapse time" arguing it wasn't free fall:D? I'm sure Mackey can give you some advice because he almost know almost everything about almost everything. Just ask him.

PSS. No need for some beachnut and nun babble or insults because it may take months until I will visit for the next time. Well, you said I should go and have a life instead of reading 9 years of failure - and I did it. It's real fun. You should try it too.:cool:

[A W Smith]

Last edited by achimspok (http://forums.randi.org/posthistory.php?p=6701800);
Did you edit out all the citations to your "proven" claims? Because all im seeing is a list of unsupported bald assertions.

I'm sure Mackey can give you some advice because he almost know almost everything about almost everything.
???? You don't speak English, do you?

[Thunder]

9-11 Truth: "WTC 7 was like a beer can".


and there we have it. :)

[WildCat]

1 cu-ft of steel weighs 490lb.
It has a capacity of 5,184,000lb.

Zomg 10,580:1 ratio!
I can't picture that... how many Aldo Marquis' is that?

[Minadin]

At least 7.

Possibly as many as 911.

[A W Smith]

At least 7.

Possibly as many as 911.


Like the centurion challenge?
http://www.keepbusy.net/play.php?id=centurion-challenge-fail

[WildCat]

Uh-oh, Kamal's nose is under the Tent of TruthTM, surely the massive conspiracy is about to be blown wide open!

[triforcharity]

FALSE AND INCORRECT

Proven a long time ago. Try the search function in this very forum.

Mackey is wrong. Penthouse collapse doesn't mean == core is gone. It's just a bit like that.

Proven: The east penthouse

<blah blah balh ************ babbling snipped>


and nun babble or insults because it may take months until I will visit for the next time. Well, you said I should go and have a life instead of reading 9 years of failure - and I did it. It's real fun. You should try it too.:cool:


Hey, I only have ONE simple question for you.

When are you going to publish your paper in a respectable journal showing NIST wrong?

[newton3376]

Hey, I only have ONE simple question for you.

When are you going to publish your paper in a respectable journal showing NIST wrong?

He really should publish a "truther" article on the collapses....

The title could be something like "Pizza and beer....modeling the collapses"

All the truthers need to do is buy some pizza and beer....they can eat the pizza and drink the beer and then use the pizza boxes to model the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 and use the beer cans to model the collapse of WTC 7.

Someone should have explained this to NIST a long time ago....all they needs was some beer and pizza and they could have saved millions on the report....plus they wouldn't have been hungry or thisty while writing it.

[ergo]

Never mind beer cans. We already have the pyramid of fine glass champagne flutes (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6503396&postcount=63).

This would be on about the same level as the WTC-as-"avalanche" arguments and how exact chocolate replicas of the Towers could demonstrate top-down collapse... :D

Let us be thankful that no one here on JREF has the capacity to go anywhere near real designs of any buildings that real human beings might use.

[triforcharity]

Well, except for the licensed architects and engineers and rocket scientists we have here. But yeah, other than that.....

[twinstead]

Never mind beer cans. We already have the pyramid of fine glass champagne flutes (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6503396&postcount=63).
This would be on about the same level as the WTC-as-"avalanche" arguments and how exact chocolate replicas of the Towers could demonstrate top-down collapse... :D


Yea, not nearly as good as pizza boxes and clunkity-clunk, huh?

[A W Smith]

Let us be thankful that no one here on JREF has the capacity to go anywhere near real designs of any buildings that real human beings might use.
http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=11466
http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=16329

Don't you feel foolish now?

[triforcharity]

Don't forget Tom K, R.Mackey.....

[DGM]

Don't forget Tom K, R.Mackey.....
That's just the tip of the iceberg.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70895

[Architect]

Did someone call?

[beachnut]

FALSE AND INCORRECT

Proven a long time ago. Try the search function in this very forum.

... PSS. No need for some beachnut ...:cool:
Proved on 911, no CD. Try the rational logic form of thinking.
... after 9 years of failure you threaten not to come back for months (please throw me in that brier-patch). Please no, not months, make it years, 100 or more. No need to come back achimspok, your failure will not improve with time. You failed to prove your delusion of CD. Indeed, you prove CD is nonsense based on moronic opinions and idiotic lies. Prove otherwise, publish in a real journal and learn you have delusions and nonsense; oops, you can't prove anything to support your CD delusion in a real journal; better publish with Jones, or Fetzer. Feel free to make it years before you post more nonsense which fails to support your CD delusion. You insult yourself with failed delusions of CD.

Chomsky - spell check for achimspok, a CT?

Is your model, proved model, or whatever you have, a beer can too? What Engineering Journal is your information in? Do you have a clue what NIST's goals were? What does WTC7 have to do with 19 terrorists doing 911? Fire melted the beer can... great model. Why do the terrorists take credit for 911? 911 truth, not as smart as a terrorist; new show?

Publish? Time? Why is Heiwa the only truther brave enough to publish his letter, his critique in a real journal? Don't you believe in your nonsense and delusions as Heiwa believed in his? Hurry back, I fixed espresso ...

[achimspok]

Last edited by achimspok (http://forums.randi.org/posthistory.php?p=6701800);
Did you edit out all the citations to your "proven" claims? Because all im seeing is a list of unsupported bald assertions.


???? You don't speak English, do you?

1) Use the search function!
2) Stay up to date!
3) Prevent discussing the same nonsense over and over again.

Do you speak german? Our conversation would be much easier. I think you don't, Mr. Smith, do you?