JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 1st January 2008, 03:23 AM   #1
Lennart Hyland
Critical Thinker
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 404
Question for Heiwa

Since you stated that these pictures are faked:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...97a8d614f3.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...97c0d6b77c.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...d54c927534.jpg

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I must agree with Tony Szamboti - the pictures or rather the deformations look strange to me. Hollywood manipulations?
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101791&page=6)

Can you please tell me where these pictures are faked and how they faked them?

Oh and when you have done that (not likely) you could show us the real pictures.
Lennart Hyland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 12:17 PM   #2
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
Since you stated that these pictures are faked:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...97a8d614f3.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...97c0d6b77c.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...d54c927534.jpg



(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101791&page=6)

1. Can you please tell me where these pictures are faked and how they faked them?

2. Oh and when you have done that (not likely) you could show us the real pictures.
1. Origin and history of the pages are unknown to me. As I understand it, it is quite easy to photoshop digital pictures nowadays. So before you link pictures to me, establish their reliability, etc.

2. Sorry, I was at Freiberg, Saxony on 911 and could not take any pictures at NY.

Reason why any picture of deformation of the south wall is faked is that the mass above is too small to deform the wall in the first place. One or more floors connected to the wall cannot deform the wall, e.g. due to alleged 'sagging' of the floor due to heat.

Reason for that? The floor is just bolted to the columns. The force/moment transmitted by the floor to the column does not change due to sagging/heat. No deformation of the wall can therefore take place.

The 'sagging' floor is pulling the wall inwards? You must be joking! The wall box column is much too strong for that.

Remind you that Nist FAQ December 2007 suggests that the floors are still connected to the walls. It is only later that they suddenly falls down, etc. 700 bolts/floor suddenly fails.

BTW - what's wrong with my article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ?
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 12:32 PM   #3
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
1.As I understand it, it is quite easy to photoshop digital pictures nowadays.
actually its quite difficult. not only must teh "faker" match the color pallete, lighting and compression of the original image, they must also be able to add in their "fakery" without disturbing the original image so much, to make it believable.

Any image that is "faked" in photoshop can be detected. It takes a keen eye to spot the manipulation of pixels to do so. Any image saved in very low resolution will be easier to notice the fakery.



The image from the NIST report of the WTC south wall is not faked in any sense of the word. The only thing they added, which you can see upon the closer examination is hte lines to designate where the floors should have been.

The rest of the building, nothing is faked about it.

(I have 15 years of graphics experience and have used Photoshop since version 3.0 - when layers were introduced)

Quote:
Reason why any picture of deformation of the south wall is faked is that the mass above is too small to deform the wall in the first place. One or more floors connected to the wall cannot deform the wall, e.g. due to alleged 'sagging' of the floor due to heat.

Reason for that? The floor is just bolted to the columns. The force/moment transmitted by the floor to the column does not change due to sagging/heat. No deformation of the wall can therefore take place.

based on what source?


Quote:
The 'sagging' floor is pulling the wall inwards? You must be joking! The wall box column is much too strong for that.
based on what?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 12:41 PM   #4
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 5,001
If the towers had been built from an 9/11 CT advocate's store of personal incredulity, they'd still be standing.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 01:11 PM   #5
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,760
FAILED - peer review; redo

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
BTW - what's wrong with my article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ?
It is a joke! Your paper is a joke. I like how you ignore the impact damage. Good job.

BTW, the WTC did fail due to impact and fire. This makes your paper a failure! BTW, if you were smart you would figure out 9/11 truth is a bunch of liars, and there were no explosives in the WTC towers.

Since you failed to come up with the correct conclusion you paper is false; you have failed! And you do not even understand! Bird cage, oops, you are funny!

Quote:
The mass above - 80% concrete and glass and lose furniture, etc - immediately break up in small pieces and cannot put any big load on the steel structure below and should just fall straight down.
WRONG! (as an engineer I have graded this section of your paper as FAILED)
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:16 PM   #6
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
actually its quite difficult. not only must teh "faker" match the color pallete, lighting and compression of the original image, they must also be able to add in their "fakery" without disturbing the original image so much, to make it believable.

1. Any image that is "faked" in photoshop can be detected. It takes a keen eye to spot the manipulation of pixels to do so. Any image saved in very low resolution will be easier to notice the fakery.



The image from the NIST report of the WTC south wall is not faked in any sense of the word. The only thing they added, which you can see upon the closer examination is hte lines to designate where the floors should have been.

The rest of the building, nothing is faked about it.

(I have 15 years of graphics experience and have used Photoshop since version 3.0 - when layers were introduced)




2. based on what source?




3. based on what?
1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.

2. I am the source. Read my paper.

3. My calculations.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:19 PM   #7
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.

2. I am the source. Read my paper.

3. My calculations.
Stop playings games,child. WHO faked the photographs?

Your claim,back it up.

Last edited by stateofgrace; 1st January 2008 at 02:24 PM.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:25 PM   #8
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,866
Heiwa doesn't even understand the principle of the towers design or how they differ from nearly every other multistorey steel frame structure that has ever been built.

With such ignorance on show, I cannot take anything Heiwa says seriously.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:28 PM   #9
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.

2. I am the source. Read my paper.

3. My calculations.

NYC police department helicopters are one source. You may have heard of them. They lost 22 police that day. Do you assert that they are part of the coverup?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:31 PM   #10
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,866
Heiwa,

You understand the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'

You have claimed that the pictures which show the buckling of the perimeter columns (and thus blow your fantasy out of the water) are faked.

Prove it.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:33 PM   #11
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.
and how does this pertain whether or not that the images are faked? YOu claim they are faked, back it up. The photographs are legit, considering how many years of media GRAPHICS experience I have.

IM claiming that because IM an expert in seeing if an image is faked or not, BASED ON MY opinion, the photographs are NOT faked.



Quote:
2. I am the source. Read my paper.
Sorry, but you can't even analyze a photograph correctly, why should I trust what YOU say? I rather trust the findings of 200 scientists, than someone who can't even prove a photograph has been faked.


Quote:
3. My calculations.
sorry, but your :calculations: are bupkiss. Better calculations have been provided by more EXPERIENCED experts here.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:33 PM   #12
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
It is a joke!

Your paper is a joke. I like how you ignore the impact damage. Good job.


BTW, the WTC did fail due to impact and fire. This makes your paper a failure! BTW, if you were smart you would figure out 9/11 truth is a bunch of liars, and there were no explosives in the WTC towers.

Since you failed to come up with the correct conclusion you paper is false; you have failed! And you do not even understand! Bird cage, oops, you are funny!

WRONG! (as an engineer I have graded this section of your paper as FAILED)
So prove that the content of the paper is wrong instead of getting upset (and vulgar in the other thread).

Bazant proposes 5 stages before suddenly something happens and there are many errors there = wrong assumptions.

Nist has made two suggestions - mass above hammers intact structure below, or, floors above fall down ... and both towers collapse.

I have looked at many videos of WTC1. It seems first the roof collapses and the mast falls. That's the start. Nothing happens at floor 94 - the initiation zone - then.

After a few seconds, actually 3-4 seconds the whole mass above floor 98 seems to self-destruct. Or is it the floors falling down? I doubt that, but Nist thinks so.

Nothing has happened at floor 94 at that time.

Then there is a lot of dust and smoke spewing out so we cannot see what actually happens at the initiation zone; hammer hitting or floors falling down. This should happen after 5-6 seconds.

So why does dust and smoke spew out sideways at floors 98+. Floors falling down? But they are intact and shall hit floor 94? Where does the dust come from?

As far as I am concerned the roof and the floors above floor 98 were not damaged by a plane or suffered any fire damage.

Why do they fail before the columns in the so called initiation zone?

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood what we are discussing.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:36 PM   #13
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
So prove that the content of the paper is wrong instead of getting upset (and vulgar in the other thread).

Bazant proposes 5 stages before suddenly something happens and there are many errors there = wrong assumptions.

Nist has made two suggestions - mass above hammers intact structure below, or, floors above fall down ... and both towers collapse.

I have looked at many videos of WTC1. It seems first the roof collapses and the mast falls. That's the start. Nothing happens at floor 94 - the initiation zone - then.

After a few seconds, actually 3-4 seconds the whole mass above floor 98 seems to self-destruct. Or is it the floors falling down? I doubt that, but Nist thinks so.

Nothing has happened at floor 94 at that time.

Then there is a lot of dust and smoke spewing out so we cannot see what actually happens at the initiation zone; hammer hitting or floors falling down. This should happen after 5-6 seconds.

So why does dust and smoke spew out sideways at floors 98+. Floors falling down? But they are intact and shall hit floor 94? Where does the dust come from?

As far as I am concerned the roof and the floors above floor 98 were not damaged by a plane or suffered any fire damage.

Why do they fail before the columns in the so called initiation zone?

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood what we are discussing
.
NO child you misunderstand.

YOU claimed the photograghs were obvious fakes. Now prove it , it is simple.

You paper is worthless unless you now prove your claim, so get to it.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:36 PM   #14
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post

After a few seconds, actually 3-4 seconds the whole mass above floor 98 seems to self-destruct. Or is it the floors falling down? I doubt that, but Nist thinks so.
Why? You've already shown that you know bugger all about the construction of multistorey steel framed structures when you claimed that the wtc towers were a conventional design. Your opinion on the events of that day are no more compelling than those of a 15 yr old LCF member.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:36 PM   #15
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 7,035
two of those images in that third link appear to be taken from around the 7 second mark in this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...553528290546&q

Google Video This video is not hosted by the JREF, the JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:41 PM   #16
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
NYC police department helicopters are one source. You may have heard of them. They lost 22 police that day. Do you assert that they are part of the coverup?
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Evidently I do not assert anything else than what is shown in my article, i.e. that the Bazant and Nist suggestions are incorrect and should be improved. NYPD has nothing to do with that.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:43 PM   #17
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Evidently I do not assert anything else than what is shown in my article, i.e. that the Bazant and Nist suggestions are incorrect and should be improved. NYPD has nothing to do with that.
Stop derailing this thread, stop avoiding the subject. Your junk is being dicussed in another thread.

This thread is about YOUR claim that the photograghs are fake, now get to it and prove your claim.

You need to prove you are right and back up your claim.

Last edited by stateofgrace; 1st January 2008 at 02:45 PM.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:44 PM   #18
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!
for cryng out loud. HE's showing you one of the SOURCES of the images in the NIST report. IT could be from the FOOTAGE taken by NYPD helicopters that WERE CIRCLING the towers on that day! holy jeezes
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:54 PM   #19
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
two of those images in that third link appear to be taken from around the 7 second mark in this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...553528290546&q

Google Video This video is not hosted by the JREF, the JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x39...c-1-falls_tech

is another on.

It seems the roof falls first at second 0, then the parts above floor 98 disintegrates at seconds 3-4 - smoke/dust spewing out - and that the 'buckled wall columns' at floor 94 are still standing then. A little after that - seconds 5-6, smoke and dust comes out of the windows at floor 94 and we do not see that buckled wall columns collapsing.

According Nist the whole part above floor 94 should be coming down as one piece, alternatively 6 or 11 floors above floor 94 were dropping down, neither of which is seen on the videos.

Why does the roof move before anything happens at floor 94?
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:56 PM   #20
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
for cryng out loud. HE's showing you one of the SOURCES of the images in the NIST report. IT could be from the FOOTAGE taken by NYPD helicopters that WERE CIRCLING the towers on that day! holy jeezes
Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:57 PM   #21
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Evidently I do not assert anything else than what is shown in my article, i.e. that the Bazant and Nist suggestions are incorrect and should be improved. NYPD has nothing to do with that.
Anders Bjorkman, You have been proven wrong. Time to conform to reality or get psychological help.

Quote:
Buckling Steel
According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.
The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns
Is this officer lying? it is a simple question. The photos taken from police helicopters disprove your assertion. You can no longer hand wave it away. Your Doubt does not negate reality. Your entire work is an argument from incredulity.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 02:58 PM   #22
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.
Irrelevent, you have seen the photographs , you claimed they were fake.

Now back up your claim or retract it.

Last edited by stateofgrace; 1st January 2008 at 02:59 PM.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 03:12 PM   #23
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
Stop derailing this thread, stop avoiding the subject. Your junk is being dicussed in another thread.

This thread is about YOUR claim that the photograghs are fake, now get to it and prove your claim.

You need to prove you are right and back up your claim.
You are right that my paper was subject of another thread and I stopped writing there for reasons given there. Now we are discussing photos (and videos) ... that do not conform to the calculations in my paper.

It seems the photos of the 'buckled wall columns' are extracted from a video showing the collapse but this video starts a little late, i.e. a couple of seconds after the roof on WTC1 started to drop (not seen on the video). I assume the wall columns we are talking about was not buckled a few seconds earlier.

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.

Then the part above the initiation zone should fall down intact and hit the structure below ... and that does not seem the case either.

It seems the part above is disintegrating before it hits floor 94.

I do not see any part above falling down where the columns are deformed!

Before the columns then buckle, it seems more smoke and dust are spewing out before that. Floors falling down from above? I cannot see that.

So the photos are maybe not really faked! Just taken out of the sequence of events? Taken after the roof started to fall.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 03:19 PM   #24
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.
Bowing of the columns indicates an imminent failure

Stick to boats
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 04:06 PM   #25
stateofgrace
Guest
 
stateofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,847
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
You are right that my paper was subject of another thread and I stopped writing there for reasons given there. Now we are discussing photos (and videos) ... that do not conform to the calculations in my paper.

It seems the photos of the 'buckled wall columns' are extracted from a video showing the collapse but this video starts a little late, i.e. a couple of seconds after the roof on WTC1 started to drop (not seen on the video). I assume the wall columns we are talking about was not buckled a few seconds earlier.

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.

Then the part above the initiation zone should fall down intact and hit the structure below ... and that does not seem the case either.

It seems the part above is disintegrating before it hits floor 94.

I do not see any part above falling down where the columns are deformed!

Before the columns then buckle, it seems more smoke and dust are spewing out before that. Floors falling down from above? I cannot see that.

So the photos are maybe not really faked! Just taken out of the sequence of events? Taken after the roof started to fall.
YOU said the photograghs were obvious fakes, are you now retracting that statement yes or no?
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 05:16 PM   #26
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,010
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Reason for that? The floor is just bolted to the columns. The force/moment transmitted by the floor to the column does not change due to sagging/heat. No deformation of the wall can therefore take place.
The amount of force does not change when the floors sag but the direction of the force does.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 05:26 PM   #27
Miragememories
Illuminator
 
Miragememories's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,318
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
Bowing of the columns indicates an imminent failure

Stick to boats
Bowing of the columns indicates bowing of the columns.

"Imminent failure" expectation is nothing but speculation, and is often applied to the bowing column observation as a means of bolstering the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis.

There were no boats.

MM
__________________
"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."
-Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007
[The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"]
"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
-Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 05:39 PM   #28
Good Lt
Graduate Poster
 
Good Lt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Satellite of Love
Posts: 1,500
Prove 9-11 was an inside job or leave, mirage.

You talk smack, but you haven't proved and can't prove that 9-11 was an inside job.

Cite evidence. We'll wait.
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny.
- Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.
- Ian Faith
Good Lt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 05:43 PM   #29
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,760
lack of knowledge?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Bowing of the columns indicates bowing of the columns.

"Imminent failure" expectation is nothing but speculation, and is often applied to the bowing column observation as a means of bolstering the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis.

There were no boats.

MM
Poor research is showing again. The guy who this OP is for is a boat guy (The writer is a structural engineer for Heiwa Coalbeit in the shipbuilding). He thinks things float! He has no respect for gravity and thinks mass can be ignored. If you could understand his paper you could show us his errors. But your lack of knowledge on his paper is only exceeded by you lack of facts on 9/11.

We have a shipbuilder making errors on a topic he proves he has poor grasp on, 9/11 WTC failure due to impact and fire. Read his paper, as an engineer I suggest he remove his paper before his company finds out he can not think rationally on an important topic. He needs to correct errors even a lay person can catch; why not try and tell us his error MM?

Last edited by beachnut; 1st January 2008 at 05:48 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 06:13 PM   #30
bje
Graduate Poster
 
bje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On Solid Ground
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post

Reason why any picture of deformation of the south wall is faked is that the mass above is too small to deform the wall in the first place.
Heiwa,

What is the actual mass above and whose calculations did you use?

What are the calculations you used to determine the mass was too small?
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.
bje is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 08:20 PM   #31
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!
Same conspiradroid crapola, different day.

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 1st January 2008 at 08:21 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2008, 08:27 PM   #32
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,875
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time.
Yet another twoofer calls the first responders liars.

So we now have the NYPD lying about the columns and the FDNY lying about WTC7.

But don't ever accuse twoofer pukes of insulting the New York police and firefighters.
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 12:31 AM   #33
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
YOU said the photograghs were obvious fakes, are you now retracting that statement yes or no?
Both videos referred to above are evidently edited. Pictures extracted from the first video showing that the wall is deformed are apparently taken after the roof starts to fall!! Clever manipulation!

I always trust my own calculations and not those of 200 'experts' or similar. US authorities have got different things wrong many times since 911 and the explanation of the WTC1 collapse is just one in a long row of mistakes.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 12:34 AM   #34
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by bje View Post
Heiwa,

What is the actual mass above and whose calculations did you use?

What are the calculations you used to determine the mass was too small?
All is explained in my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

The mass above is 33 000 tons, the stresses in the wall columns are 22.5% of the yield stress, the wall columns are not heated very much, slenderness ratio is very low = no buckling or deformation can take place.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 12:47 AM   #35
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by Mancman View Post
The amount of force does not change when the floors sag but the direction of the force does.
The direction of the load on the floor is evidently that of gravity and does not change. This load/force is then transmitted to the wall column via two bolts.

It is suggested that a floor between the wall and the core sags due to heat and the load on the floor and that a horizontal force is added in the floor and that this force should pull the wall inwards. OK, show how much the direction changes and then make a little calculation of how the wall column should deflect due to that!
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 01:35 AM   #36
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,676
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.

Astounding level of ignorance. Not only did they take photos, but one of the three photos in the original OP is from the NYPD Aviation Unit, as clearly stated on the photograph which NIST have stamped (c) 2001. New York Police Department. All Rights Reserved.

Could you possibly be more incompetent?

-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 05:02 AM   #37
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Astounding level of ignorance. Not only did they take photos, but one of the three photos in the original OP is from the NYPD Aviation Unit, as clearly stated on the photograph which NIST have stamped (c) 2001. New York Police Department. All Rights Reserved.

Could you possibly be more incompetent?

-Gumboot
Well, one photo is apparently from a video film and it is not clear when that frame was taken. You see, there are many strange things here, e.g. (repeat):

Nist says that (A) potential energy is released when the columns at the initiation zone starts to crumble but it is clear that the mass above, e.g. the roof, starts to move down before the columns crumble, actually the columns are not seen to crumble at all.
Then Nist suggests that this potential energy (B) exceeds the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (undefined) forgetting that the potential energy released (no value) must be applied to the (other) structure to affect it.
Just looking at videos of the collapse we see many effects (C) taking place in intact structure before any (A) potential energy released from above is (B) applied to structure.
(A) is for example seen throwing dust sideways and upward which is not according to laws of physics.
So the Nist suggestion that global collapse ensued due to (A) and (B) is not proven and not even seen on the videos, while (C) is observed but not explained.
My article accuses nobody of anything; just recommends the relevant parties to improve and/or correct their work.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 05:10 AM   #38
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 17,997
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Well, one photo is apparently from a video film and it is not clear when that frame was taken. You see, there are many strange things here, e.g. (repeat):

Nist says that (A) potential energy is released when the columns at the initiation zone starts to crumble but it is clear that the mass above, e.g. the roof, starts to move down before the columns crumble, actually the columns are not seen to crumble at all.
Then Nist suggests that this potential energy (B) exceeds the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (undefined) forgetting that the potential energy released (no value) must be applied to the (other) structure to affect it.
Just looking at videos of the collapse we see many effects (C) taking place in intact structure before any (A) potential energy released from above is (B) applied to structure.
(A) is for example seen throwing dust sideways and upward which is not according to laws of physics.
So the Nist suggestion that global collapse ensued due to (A) and (B) is not proven and not even seen on the videos, while (C) is observed but not explained.
My article accuses nobody of anything; just recommends the relevant parties to improve and/or correct their work.
Keep trying to fool the children. That's obviously your speed. Us adults know your agenda.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 05:35 AM   #39
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
the wall columns are not heated very much
Anders, again you have made this claim, despite being shown photos and being directed to studies that show otherwise. You don't strike me as a stupid person, so I can only guess that when you look at these photos and say the columns are not heated very much, either mental illness has afflicted you or you are lying to try to support an untenable position.

Please describe what YOU see when you look at these photos, Anders. I'm genuinely interested to know.




Five minutes before collapse.




__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 2nd January 2008 at 05:39 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2008, 05:37 AM   #40
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,200
IIRC one of the photos is taken by Allen Murabayashi, who worked at the WTC (I don't remember which tower).
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.