FREE TAPATALK APP

JimBenArm · 2nd January 2008, 04:40 AM

I think the Heiwa threads prove without any doubt why the Swedish Navy is such a huge maritime threat. Of course, this threat is only to the sailors that dare to go aboard one of Heiwa's vessels...

bje · 2nd January 2008, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

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, you did not include the mass of the top section of WTC 2 which was 110,000 tons, yet you state that your analysis applies to <b>both</b> towers. So, immediately, you have made a major error.

Please redo your calculations for WTC 2 and report back.

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Gravy

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.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b839294822.jpg

Five minutes before collapse.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b82f38893b.jpg

Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between.

But if a few wall columns would reduce their strength due to heat, the adjacent ones carry the load. All other columns are intact. And, when the fire changes location, the previously affected columns cool down ... and regain their original strength (compression wise).

Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.

The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance.

DGM · 2nd January 2008, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between.

But if a few wall columns would reduce their strength due to heat, the adjacent ones carry the load. All other columns are intact. And, when the fire changes location, the previously affected columns cool down ... and regain their original strength (compression wise).

Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.

The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance.

Who are you trying to convince here with your opinion? Yourself. Why don't you take it to Loose Change forum there's lot's of impressionable children there.

ETA I see you added insulation to the columns. Maybe there is hope for you.

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by bje

Heiwa, you did not include the mass of the top section of WTC 2 which was 110,000 tons, yet you state that your analysis applies to <b>both</b> towers. So, immediately, you have made a major error.

Please redo your calculations for WTC 2 and report back.

Article is only about WTC 1. I can do the same for WTC2 and you will find that the compressive stresses in the columns are the same, even if the mass above there is bigger, etc.

Nist states that the two towers collapsed exactly for the same cause. I took WTC 1 as an example that the Nist cause is incorrect. Doesn't it suffice?

Also WTC1 is easier to analyse. The perpetrators got sloppy or tired. WTC2 had 'collapsed' as per plan but WTC1 was still standing and the fire was reducing. No way the columns in the initiation zone could fail. So they committed many mistakes as shown in my article.

Gravy · 2nd January 2008, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

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.

As always, you are dead wrong.

YouTube 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

Reality's a bitch, ain't she?

Gravy · 2nd January 2008, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Also WTC1 is easier to analyse. The perpetrators got sloppy or tired. WTC2 had 'collapsed' as per plan but WTC1 was still standing and the fire was reducing. No way the columns in the initiation zone could fail.

As always, you are dead wrong. Again, please describe what YOU see, Anders. Five minutes before collapse:

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

Who are you trying to convince here with your opinion? Yourself. Why don't you take it to Loose Change forum there's lot's of impressionable children there.

ETA I see you added insulation to the columns. Maybe there is hope for you.

I am replying to 'bje'.

The heat insulation of the wall columns was always there. It has nothing to do with fire proofing, which is much thicker and obviously completely different.

DGM · 2nd January 2008, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

I am replying to 'bje'.

The heat insulation of the wall columns was always there. It has nothing to do with fire proofing, which is much thicker and obviously completely different.

So you say 'Blazeshield' is not for fire? You really need to read up on what you claim to be knowledgeable about.

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Gravy

As always, you are dead wrong. Again, please describe what YOU see, Anders. Five minutes before collapse:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b82f38893b.jpg

I see some minor office fires at different floors above the impact where there originally was jet fuel and no deformations of any wall columns at all. No floors sagging. Etc.

The picture is very good! No concentrated fires anywhere but spread apart in different locations on different floors, mostly secondary small fires. Making a lot of smoke but cannot cause any risk to the structure. Evidently.

To be a real hazard, the fire must be concentrated - on one floor - attacking all the columns at the same time. Small fires here and there is no hazard. The redundancy of the structure takes care of that. Evidently.

Gravy, don't you understand that you do not understand ... and are fooled by nonsense? In cases like that I recommend a cold shower. But thank you for the picture showing me right.

Gravy · 2nd January 2008, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.

You've already seen the photos with the vertical lines added that follow the columns, showing enormous inward bowing. One is an enlargement of the photo I just posted above, in which the roof CLEARLY has not started to fall, because it's five minutes before collapse. Present your evidence that the photos and videos are fake now, or retract your claim, Anders. You agree that's the correct way for rational people to behave, don't you? Or are you too ill to understand?

Quote:

The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance.

Why do no structural or fire protection engineers agree with you, Anders? What do you know that they don't? Present your expert studies and experiments that counter their decades of work, NOW, or retract your claims.

Fair enough, Anders? Then proceed with your evidence. No one cares about your arguments from incredulity.

Gravy · 2nd January 2008, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between.

You seem to be blissfully unaware that this wall was blasted by airliner and office debris. Here's one of the south wall panels, about 700 feet away. Do you think such impacts would have affected the spray-on and wallboard insulation, Anders?

Calcas · 2nd January 2008, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

I always trust my own calculations and not those of 200 'experts' or similar.

Stundie material.

WildCat · 2nd January 2008, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

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.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

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.

Holy crap, that's an incredible amount of ignorance!

I really can't help but wonder how you function in your life, being so disconnected from reality.

Gravy · 2nd January 2008, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

no deformations of any wall columns at all.

I'm glad you accept that photo as authentic. Do you see the pronounced inward bowing from about floors 95-98, around columns 316-321?

bje · 2nd January 2008, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Article is only about WTC 1. I can do the same for WTC2 and you will find that the compressive stresses in the columns are the same, even if the mass above there is bigger, etc.

No, you make it clear that you are writing about both WTC 1 and WETC 2. Let me refresh your memory, Heiwa:

Quote:

This means that we can conclude the following:

Conclusions
The Twin Towers structure was very simple and its wall and core columns can be likened to steel bars in a bird cage full of air ... and humans. The compressive stress in the bird cage bars due to mass incl. floor loads is very small (<30% of yield stress). The Towers' structure was very strong!

Since the mass of the top section of WTC 2 was 110,000 tons, and not 33,000 tons, you must do recalculations. You may not exclude mass from any calculation.

Please do the recalculations for WTC 2 and get back to us with your corrections for that tower.

Miragememories · 2nd January 2008, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

I see some minor office fires at different floors above the impact where there originally was jet fuel and no deformations of any wall columns at all. No floors sagging. Etc.

The picture is very good! No concentrated fires anywhere but spread apart in different locations on different floors, mostly secondary small fires. Making a lot of smoke but cannot cause any risk to the structure. Evidently.

To be a real hazard, the fire must be concentrated - on one floor - attacking all the columns at the same time. Small fires here and there is no hazard. The redundancy of the structure takes care of that. Evidently.

Gravy, don't you understand that you do not understand ... and are fooled by nonsense? In cases like that I recommend a cold shower. But thank you for the picture showing me right.

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Good luck and keep a thick skin.

MM

DGM · 2nd January 2008, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Good luck and keep a thick skin.

MM

MM:
Do you plan to go back to this thread and back up your own assertions?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102116

Miragememories · 2nd January 2008, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

MM:
Do you plan to go back to this thread and back up your own assertions?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102116

DONE!

MM

WildCat · 2nd January 2008, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Thanks for the laugh before I head out to the museum on cold-weather day off work!

DGM · 2nd January 2008, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

DONE!

MM

Actually this is a lie. You did not back up your assertion you told me to.

twinstead · 2nd January 2008, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Good luck and keep a thick skin.

MM

Well of course, because we all are highly-paid government debunkers with the power of th NWO at our disposal. (cue evil laughter)

MM, is this what they teach you in Conspiracy Theory 101?

Miragememories · 2nd January 2008, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

Actually this is a lie. You did not back up your assertion you told me to.

How can it possibly be a lie?

Neither your response or mine was that specific.

You puppets are just so quick with the "liar, liar pants on fire!"

MM

Mancman · 2nd January 2008, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Good luck and keep a thick skin.

MM

I think you need to talk to someone. Not joking. Seriously, seek help.

uk_dave · 2nd January 2008, 09:05 AM

We are a conspiracy theory.

Neat.

Miragememories · 2nd January 2008, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Well of course, because we all are highly-paid government debunkers with the power of th NWO at our disposal. (cue evil laughter)

MM, is this what they teach you in Conspiracy Theory 101?

People will allow themselves, unwittingly or otherwise, to perform in any puppet show if they strongly believe in it's particular cause.

Some people see the hard choices ahead and choose to support the status quo and say "tough luck for those without the military might to challenge us."

The real patriots are those who refuse to be selfish puppets and view themselves as citizens of the whole world.

MM

uk_dave · 2nd January 2008, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

People will allow themselves, unwittingly or otherwise, to perform in any puppet show if they strongly believe in it's particular cause.

Is that what you're doing?

Quote:

The real patriots are those who refuse to be selfish puppets and view themselves as citizens of the whole world.

MM

Isn't that the NWO?

Crikey, MM, what exactly are you trying to confess to?

Pardalis · 2nd January 2008, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

I see some minor office fires

Unbelievable.

funk de fino · 2nd January 2008, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

I see some minor office fires at different floors

Now I can see what someone who is truly delusional acts like.

It is very sad

I was up those towers in july 2001, they were huge, quite beyond anything I have ever seen then or since, those fires are massive, probably the largest in manhattans history and this fellow european thinks its small office fires

It is not worth wasting time on someone like this

uk_dave · 2nd January 2008, 09:42 AM

Perhaps it would be useful to list a few of the most glaring errors stated by Heiwa.

Obviously we have at number 1....

The towers were the same structural design as every other multistorey steel frame structure

Then we have.....

Fireproofing to steel is to prevent the fire from being transferred via the steel

In addition to this we have....

The fireproofing to the columns was actually thermal insulation to prevent heat loss/gain

And now we have ....

They were small office fires

Classy.

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Gravy

I'm glad you accept that photo as authentic. Do you see the pronounced inward bowing from about floors 95-98, around columns 316-321?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...97a8d614f3.jpg

Are you sure this is the South wall? Compare figure 8-44 (also South wall at 9.19 hrs am) in previous message. They do not look the same. Fires are at different areas, which is good. The fires moved around and were short lived = not lot of influence on structure. Look eg at floor 95/column 351 left side.

OK - the latest NYPD picture at 10.22 hrs - one hour later - is 'digitally enhanced',etc. I doubt very much that 'inward bowing' at floor 98/column 321 is 39 inch = 1 meter!!

Doubt? No, the 'inward bowing' figures are absolute nonsense.

The person - NYPD? - doing this fakery knows nothing about steel structures + bolted floors of a wall opposite the real damage (by the plane).

Plenty of false info - copyright of course + All rights reserved - floating around.

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Good luck and keep a thick skin.

MM

Hallo MM. Thanks - it is quite obvious actually how the puppets obstruct this forum. Re their masters I am not too worried. With such puppets!

tsig · 2nd January 2008, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

All the towers had lifeboats in case of a tidal storm surge. They were build by the Port Authority after all.

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Now I can see what someone who is truly delusional acts like.

It is very sad

I was up those towers in july 2001, they were huge, quite beyond anything I have ever seen then or since, those fires are massive, probably the largest in manhattans history and this fellow european thinks its small office fires

It is not worth wasting time on someone like this

So why waste your time? I have also been up in the Towers - American Bureau of Shipping's office on 94th floor (WTC2 ?) - just normal office furniture, etc. Not much that could burn.

Sorry - no massive fires. I agree with NYFD - they could easily have handled the fires. But something happened ... It concerns me.

tsig · 2nd January 2008, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear.

Good luck and keep a thick skin.

MM

Yeah the limited resources of the JREF. Why you know Randi can even afford to give away a million dollars on a whim.

Well there is the NWO kitty see him and know fear.

tsig · 2nd January 2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

How can it possibly be a lie?

Neither your response or mine was that specific.

You puppets are just so quick with the "liar, liar pants on fire!"

MM

Who's yanking your strings?

I haven't heard that cry since the third grade.

tsig · 2nd January 2008, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

People will allow themselves, unwittingly or otherwise, to perform in any puppet show if they strongly believe in it's particular cause.

Some people see the hard choices ahead and choose to support the status quo and say "tough luck for those without the military might to challenge us."

The real patriots are those who refuse to be selfish puppets and view themselves as citizens of the whole world.

MM

Yeah and when you go to the bathroom there's nothing but the smell of roses in the air.

How can a puppet be selfish or have any emotions?

tsig · 2nd January 2008, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Are you sure this is the South wall? Compare figure 8-44 (also South wall at 9.19 hrs am) in previous message. They do not look the same. Fires are at different areas, which is good. The fires moved around and were short lived = not lot of influence on structure. Look eg at floor 95/column 351 left side.

OK - the latest NYPD picture at 10.22 hrs - one hour later - is 'digitally enhanced',etc. I doubt very much that 'inward bowing' at floor 98/column 321 is 39 inch = 1 meter!!

Doubt? No, the 'inward bowing' figures are absolute nonsense.

The person - NYPD? - doing this fakery knows nothing about steel structures + bolted floors of a wall opposite the real damage (by the plane).

Plenty of false info - copyright of course + All rights reserved - floating around.

Your whole comment is false info.

"I doubt" is your whole statement and your whole argument.

Figures can't lie but liars can figure.

Heiwa · 2nd January 2008, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by bje

No, you make it clear that you are writing about both WTC 1 and WETC 2. Let me refresh your memory, Heiwa:

Since the mass of the top section of WTC 2 was 110,000 tons, and not 33,000 tons, you must do recalculations. You may not exclude mass from any calculation.

Please do the recalculations for WTC 2 and get back to us with your corrections for that tower.

Not necessary - the relevant columns of WTC2 were much stronger as they were further down in the building but naturally with the same stresses as explained in my article.

Also the damages were much less at WTC2 - and the fires much smaller - so the perpetrators had to finish that job quickly.

Unfortunately WTC2 is less well documented by media, because nobody expected the tower to suddenly ... explode. But WTC1 - is a different story. That's why I concentrate on it in my story for children ... and other interested parties. Keep it simple - then people will understand.

funk de fino · 2nd January 2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Heiwa

So why waste your time? I have also been up in the Towers - American Bureau of Shipping's office on 94th floor (WTC2 ?) - just normal office furniture, etc. Not much that could burn.

Sorry - no massive fires. I agree with NYFD - they could easily have handled the fires. But something happened ... It concerns me.

You really didnt need to confirm your delusional stance to me

It is not the NYFD, and you are lying about what you think they could have done. Your pathetic claims of fakery have you stuck on as a troll and no better than any of the loose change teenager morons

I can handle the delusional stuff but not dishonesty. If you look at those pictures and do not see huge fires then you are not a well person.

2nd January 2008, 04:40 AM	#41
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 13,018	I think the Heiwa threads prove without any doubt why the Swedish Navy is such a huge maritime threat. Of course, this threat is only to the sailors that dare to go aboard one of Heiwa's vessels...
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

2nd January 2008, 05:37 AM	#42
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: On Solid Ground Posts: 1,280	Originally Posted by Heiwa 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, you did not include the mass of the top section of WTC 2 which was 110,000 tons, yet you state that your analysis applies to <b>both</b> towers. So, immediately, you have made a major error. Please redo your calculations for WTC 2 and report back.
	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

2nd January 2008, 05:52 AM	#43
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by Gravy 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. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b839294822.jpg Five minutes before collapse. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b82f38893b.jpg Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between. But if a few wall columns would reduce their strength due to heat, the adjacent ones carry the load. All other columns are intact. And, when the fire changes location, the previously affected columns cool down ... and regain their original strength (compression wise). Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns. The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

2nd January 2008, 05:57 AM	#44
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,527	Originally Posted by Heiwa Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between. But if a few wall columns would reduce their strength due to heat, the adjacent ones carry the load. All other columns are intact. And, when the fire changes location, the previously affected columns cool down ... and regain their original strength (compression wise). Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns. The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance. Who are you trying to convince here with your opinion? Yourself. Why don't you take it to Loose Change forum there's lot's of impressionable children there. ETA I see you added insulation to the columns. Maybe there is hope for you.
	__________________ 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 Last edited by DGM; 2nd January 2008 at 06:00 AM.

2nd January 2008, 06:01 AM	#45
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by bje Heiwa, you did not include the mass of the top section of WTC 2 which was 110,000 tons, yet you state that your analysis applies to <b>both</b> towers. So, immediately, you have made a major error. Please redo your calculations for WTC 2 and report back. Article is only about WTC 1. I can do the same for WTC2 and you will find that the compressive stresses in the columns are the same, even if the mass above there is bigger, etc. Nist states that the two towers collapsed exactly for the same cause. I took WTC 1 as an example that the Nist cause is incorrect. Doesn't it suffice? Also WTC1 is easier to analyse. The perpetrators got sloppy or tired. WTC2 had 'collapsed' as per plan but WTC1 was still standing and the fire was reducing. No way the columns in the initiation zone could fail. So they committed many mistakes as shown in my article.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

2nd January 2008, 06:04 AM	#47
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Heiwa Also WTC1 is easier to analyse. The perpetrators got sloppy or tired. WTC2 had 'collapsed' as per plan but WTC1 was still standing and the fire was reducing. No way the columns in the initiation zone could fail. As always, you are dead wrong. Again, please describe what YOU see, Anders. 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 06:05 AM.

2nd January 2008, 06:05 AM	#48
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by DGM Who are you trying to convince here with your opinion? Yourself. Why don't you take it to Loose Change forum there's lot's of impressionable children there. ETA I see you added insulation to the columns. Maybe there is hope for you. I am replying to 'bje'. The heat insulation of the wall columns was always there. It has nothing to do with fire proofing, which is much thicker and obviously completely different.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

2nd January 2008, 06:11 AM	#49
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,527	Originally Posted by Heiwa I am replying to 'bje'. The heat insulation of the wall columns was always there. It has nothing to do with fire proofing, which is much thicker and obviously completely different. So you say 'Blazeshield' is not for fire? You really need to read up on what you claim to be knowledgeable about.
	__________________ 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

2nd January 2008, 06:13 AM	#50
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by Gravy As always, you are dead wrong. Again, please describe what YOU see, Anders. Five minutes before collapse: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b82f38893b.jpg I see some minor office fires at different floors above the impact where there originally was jet fuel and no deformations of any wall columns at all. No floors sagging. Etc. The picture is very good! No concentrated fires anywhere but spread apart in different locations on different floors, mostly secondary small fires. Making a lot of smoke but cannot cause any risk to the structure. Evidently. To be a real hazard, the fire must be concentrated - on one floor - attacking all the columns at the same time. Small fires here and there is no hazard. The redundancy of the structure takes care of that. Evidently. Gravy, don't you understand that you do not understand ... and are fooled by nonsense? In cases like that I recommend a cold shower. But thank you for the picture showing me right.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Last edited by Heiwa; 2nd January 2008 at 06:17 AM.

2nd January 2008, 06:14 AM	#51
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Heiwa Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns. You've already seen the photos with the vertical lines added that follow the columns, showing enormous inward bowing. One is an enlargement of the photo I just posted above, in which the roof CLEARLY has not started to fall, because it's five minutes before collapse. Present your evidence that the photos and videos are fake now, or retract your claim, Anders. You agree that's the correct way for rational people to behave, don't you? Or are you too ill to understand? Quote: The two photos confirm my calculations and UK expertize. The heat due to fire will not affect the steel structure. Thank you for your assistance. Why do no structural or fire protection engineers agree with you, Anders? What do you know that they don't? Present your expert studies and experiments that counter their decades of work, NOW, or retract your claims. Fair enough, Anders? Then proceed with your evidence. No one cares about your arguments from incredulity.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

2nd January 2008, 06:17 AM	#52
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Heiwa Re the first figure (No 8-44 South wall) I observe that all floor 94 wall columns are intact. At floor 95 - five columns at the left are close to fire. No deformations are seen there as expected. The aluminium wall cladding may be hot, but as we know, inside is some heat insulation, so I assume the steel columns there are not very hot ... and that any heat there in a column is spread up/down. It is very difficult to heat up a wall column protected by alu (outside) and gypsum plate (inside) cladding with heat insulation in between. You seem to be blissfully unaware that this wall was blasted by airliner and office debris. Here's one of the south wall panels, about 700 feet away. Do you think such impacts would have affected the spray-on and wallboard insulation, Anders?
	__________________ "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 06:29 AM.

2nd January 2008, 06:21 AM	#53
Calcas Master of my Domain Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,472	Originally Posted by Heiwa I always trust my own calculations and not those of 200 'experts' or similar. Stundie material.

2nd January 2008, 06:23 AM	#54
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,457	Originally Posted by Heiwa 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. Originally Posted by Heiwa 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. Holy crap, that's an incredible amount of ignorance! I really can't help but wonder how you function in your life, being so disconnected from reality.

2nd January 2008, 06:26 AM	#55
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Heiwa Re second figure (Five minutes before collapse) I do not see any deformed wall columns. Originally Posted by Heiwa no deformations of any wall columns at all. I'm glad you accept that photo as authentic. Do you see the pronounced inward bowing from about floors 95-98, around columns 316-321?
	__________________ "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 06:26 AM.

2nd January 2008, 06:45 AM	#56
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: On Solid Ground Posts: 1,280	Originally Posted by Heiwa Article is only about WTC 1. I can do the same for WTC2 and you will find that the compressive stresses in the columns are the same, even if the mass above there is bigger, etc. No, you make it clear that you are writing about both WTC 1 and WETC 2. Let me refresh your memory, Heiwa: Quote: This means that we can conclude the following: Conclusions The Twin Towers structure was very simple and its wall and core columns can be likened to steel bars in a bird cage full of air ... and humans. The compressive stress in the bird cage bars due to mass incl. floor loads is very small (<30% of yield stress). The Towers' structure was very strong! Since the mass of the top section of WTC 2 was 110,000 tons, and not 33,000 tons, you must do recalculations. You may not exclude mass from any calculation. Please do the recalculations for WTC 2 and get back to us with your corrections for that tower.
	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

2nd January 2008, 07:15 AM	#57
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by Heiwa I see some minor office fires at different floors above the impact where there originally was jet fuel and no deformations of any wall columns at all. No floors sagging. Etc. The picture is very good! No concentrated fires anywhere but spread apart in different locations on different floors, mostly secondary small fires. Making a lot of smoke but cannot cause any risk to the structure. Evidently. To be a real hazard, the fire must be concentrated - on one floor - attacking all the columns at the same time. Small fires here and there is no hazard. The redundancy of the structure takes care of that. Evidently. Gravy, don't you understand that you do not understand ... and are fooled by nonsense? In cases like that I recommend a cold shower. But thank you for the picture showing me right. When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear. Good luck and keep a thick skin. 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

2nd January 2008, 07:19 AM	#58
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,527	Originally Posted by Miragememories When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear. Good luck and keep a thick skin. MM MM: Do you plan to go back to this thread and back up your own assertions? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102116
	__________________ 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

2nd January 2008, 07:48 AM	#59
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by DGM MM: Do you plan to go back to this thread and back up your own assertions? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102116 DONE! 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

2nd January 2008, 08:06 AM	#60
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,457	Originally Posted by Miragememories When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear. Thanks for the laugh before I head out to the museum on cold-weather day off work!

2nd January 2008, 08:52 AM	#62
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	Originally Posted by Miragememories When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear. Good luck and keep a thick skin. MM Well of course, because we all are highly-paid government debunkers with the power of th NWO at our disposal. (cue evil laughter) MM, is this what they teach you in Conspiracy Theory 101?

2nd January 2008, 08:53 AM	#63
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by DGM Actually this is a lie. You did not back up your assertion you told me to. How can it possibly be a lie? Neither your response or mine was that specific. You puppets are just so quick with the "liar, liar pants on fire!" 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

2nd January 2008, 08:56 AM	#64
Mancman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 1,010	Originally Posted by Miragememories When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear. Good luck and keep a thick skin. MM I think you need to talk to someone. Not joking. Seriously, seek help.
	__________________ R.I.P Dr. Adequate

2nd January 2008, 09:05 AM	#65
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	We are a conspiracy theory. Neat.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

2nd January 2008, 09:06 AM	#66
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by twinstead Well of course, because we all are highly-paid government debunkers with the power of th NWO at our disposal. (cue evil laughter) MM, is this what they teach you in Conspiracy Theory 101? People will allow themselves, unwittingly or otherwise, to perform in any puppet show if they strongly believe in it's particular cause. Some people see the hard choices ahead and choose to support the status quo and say "tough luck for those without the military might to challenge us." The real patriots are those who refuse to be selfish puppets and view themselves as citizens of the whole world. 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

2nd January 2008, 09:08 AM	#67
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Miragememories People will allow themselves, unwittingly or otherwise, to perform in any puppet show if they strongly believe in it's particular cause. Is that what you're doing? Quote: The real patriots are those who refuse to be selfish puppets and view themselves as citizens of the whole world. MM Isn't that the NWO? Crikey, MM, what exactly are you trying to confess to?
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

2nd January 2008, 09:12 AM	#68
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Heiwa I see some minor office fires Unbelievable.

2nd January 2008, 09:37 AM	#69
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by Heiwa I see some minor office fires at different floors Now I can see what someone who is truly delusional acts like. It is very sad I was up those towers in july 2001, they were huge, quite beyond anything I have ever seen then or since, those fires are massive, probably the largest in manhattans history and this fellow european thinks its small office fires It is not worth wasting time on someone like this
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

2nd January 2008, 09:42 AM	#70
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Perhaps it would be useful to list a few of the most glaring errors stated by Heiwa. Obviously we have at number 1.... The towers were the same structural design as every other multistorey steel frame structure Then we have..... Fireproofing to steel is to prevent the fire from being transferred via the steel In addition to this we have.... The fireproofing to the columns was actually thermal insulation to prevent heat loss/gain And now we have .... They were small office fires Classy.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

2nd January 2008, 09:56 AM	#71
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by Gravy I'm glad you accept that photo as authentic. Do you see the pronounced inward bowing from about floors 95-98, around columns 316-321? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...97a8d614f3.jpg Are you sure this is the South wall? Compare figure 8-44 (also South wall at 9.19 hrs am) in previous message. They do not look the same. Fires are at different areas, which is good. The fires moved around and were short lived = not lot of influence on structure. Look eg at floor 95/column 351 left side. OK - the latest NYPD picture at 10.22 hrs - one hour later - is 'digitally enhanced',etc. I doubt very much that 'inward bowing' at floor 98/column 321 is 39 inch = 1 meter!! Doubt? No, the 'inward bowing' figures are absolute nonsense. The person - NYPD? - doing this fakery knows nothing about steel structures + bolted floors of a wall opposite the real damage (by the plane). Plenty of false info - copyright of course + All rights reserved - floating around.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

2nd January 2008, 10:05 AM	#72
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by Miragememories When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear. Good luck and keep a thick skin. MM Hallo MM. Thanks - it is quite obvious actually how the puppets obstruct this forum. Re their masters I am not too worried. With such puppets!
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

2nd January 2008, 10:06 AM	#73
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,248	Originally Posted by Miragememories 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 All the towers had lifeboats in case of a tidal storm surge. They were build by the Port Authority after all.

2nd January 2008, 10:14 AM	#74
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149	Originally Posted by funk de fino Now I can see what someone who is truly delusional acts like. It is very sad I was up those towers in july 2001, they were huge, quite beyond anything I have ever seen then or since, those fires are massive, probably the largest in manhattans history and this fellow european thinks its small office fires It is not worth wasting time on someone like this So why waste your time? I have also been up in the Towers - American Bureau of Shipping's office on 94th floor (WTC2 ?) - just normal office furniture, etc. Not much that could burn. Sorry - no massive fires. I agree with NYFD - they could easily have handled the fires. But something happened ... It concerns me.
Heiwa Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,149

2nd January 2008, 10:18 AM	#75
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,248	Originally Posted by Miragememories When you argue with the puppets here Heiwa, you are really taking on their masters and all the unlimited resources they can bring to bear. Good luck and keep a thick skin. MM Yeah the limited resources of the JREF. Why you know Randi can even afford to give away a million dollars on a whim. Well there is the NWO kitty see him and know fear.

2nd January 2008, 10:22 AM	#76
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,248	Originally Posted by Miragememories How can it possibly be a lie? Neither your response or mine was that specific. You puppets are just so quick with the "liar, liar pants on fire!" MM Who's yanking your strings? I haven't heard that cry since the third grade.

2nd January 2008, 10:25 AM	#77
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,248	Originally Posted by Miragememories People will allow themselves, unwittingly or otherwise, to perform in any puppet show if they strongly believe in it's particular cause. Some people see the hard choices ahead and choose to support the status quo and say "tough luck for those without the military might to challenge us." The real patriots are those who refuse to be selfish puppets and view themselves as citizens of the whole world. MM Yeah and when you go to the bathroom there's nothing but the smell of roses in the air. How can a puppet be selfish or have any emotions?